View Full Version : How does the Republican Party fix itself?
What we need in the next election is a truly Conservative candidate
to run for President. McCain was not a conservative and neither was GW Bush.
Put a real Conservative in the race and you'll see a landslide victory
and Powell can eat his own words.
Littlelebowski
12-12-08, 06:58
Go back to the core beliefs of being a conservative and lose the religious nonsense, do not cater to any group based on skin color. Powell lost my respect entirely.
Go back to the core beliefs of being a conservative and lose the religious nonsense, do not cater to any group based on skin color. Powell lost my respect entirely.
Bring back Barry Goldwater!
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 10:13
Go back to the core beliefs of being a conservative and lose the religious nonsense, do not cater to any group based on skin color. Powell lost my respect entirely.
I agree with you.
McCain was horrid, and while I like Sarah Palin on a certain level, I'm not sure she should be a head of state.
The Republicans are floundering because they are not conservative. They are fractured and confused by the Christian Fundies in the party spouting socialism but pretending it is conservatism.
They need to forget worrying about abortion, worrying about prayer in school and 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, and get to a stripped down, lean secular conservatism.
They are fractured and confused by the Christian Fundies in the party spouting socialism but pretending it is conservatism.
Huh? :confused:
They need to forget worrying about abortion, worrying about prayer in school and 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, and get to a stripped down, lean secular conservatism.
As someone who definitely could be described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, I could not possibly agree more strongly. The majority of that category is hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face over the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc.
The evangelical Christian community has somehow decided that legislation is an acceptable method of evangelism. I attribute this mostly to cowardice, fear, and a complete lack of the appropriate combination of faith and testicular fortitude. As a whole, they've done such a poor job of preaching the Word and spreading the Gospel that (it's hard when you don't practice what you preach) that they've given up and hope to enforce their beliefs through law. They've lost sight of the idea that we need to lead people to the Lord and let Him change their hearts, not just legislate them into falling in line.
Meanwhile, they're alienating the middle so much, and being painted so unfavorably by the media, that all they do is keep the group that's more favorable to them out of power. Because they refuse to accept that the government might have to recognize that not everyone shares their belief system, they won't compromise and end up with a government that is outright hostile to their beliefs. Go figure.
I guess I'm not tracking...
From my perspective, "evangelicals" - whatever the hell that is... have tried to do nothing buy hold the line against the liberal leftist weanies that would have us all bend over to all of their nitwittery.
For the most part, with all due respect to the previous poster, I believe that his diatribe is part and parcel of the lie that the left would have conservatives swallow. The truth is, we lost the last election because we abandoned those principles and tried to paint McCain as a 'moderate'. Placating the enemy, in this case the leftists that would have us lower our flag to the greater part of the EU and other social leftists/greens/etc...does nothing for conservatives. Except of course to put us in a easily beaten position politically. We offered no real conservative solutions grounded in values and principles to the pablum that was served up by the leftists, thus we lost.
I don't understand how defending principle is somehow something we should be afraid to do.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 14:03
As someone who definitely could be described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, I could not possibly agree more strongly. The majority of that category is hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face over the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc.
The evangelical Christian community has somehow decided that legislation is an acceptable method of evangelism. I attribute this mostly to cowardice, fear, and a complete lack of the appropriate combination of faith and testicular fortitude. As a whole, they've done such a poor job of preaching the Word and spreading the Gospel that (it's hard when you don't practice what you preach) that they've given up and hope to enforce their beliefs through law. They've lost sight of the idea that we need to lead people to the Lord and let Him change their hearts, not just legislate them into falling in line.
Meanwhile, they're alienating the middle so much, and being painted so unfavorably by the media, that all they do is keep the group that's more favorable to them out of power. Because they refuse to accept that the government might have to recognize that not everyone shares their belief system, they won't compromise and end up with a government that is outright hostile to their beliefs. Go figure.
Very well said.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 14:05
Huh? :confused:
Obviously you equate: Republican Party = conservative = Christian
That equation is not working out so well - the proof is in the election results.
decodeddiesel
12-12-08, 14:05
I agree with you.
McCain was horrid, and while I like Sarah Palin on a certain level, I'm not sure she should be a head of state.
The Republicans are floundering because they are not conservative. They are fractured and confused by the Christian Fundies in the party spouting socialism but pretending it is conservatism.
They need to forget worrying about abortion, worrying about prayer in school and 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, and get to a stripped down, lean secular conservatism.
Very well said Sir. I agree with you on all fronts, and especially those which I have highlighted.
It seems the real conservatives (which are basically borderline libertarians, or at least classic liberals) are so concerned about alienating the rank and file Religious Right that they won't ditch the non-secular platform which the party has adopted over the last 20 years in favor of what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole, a return to the fundamental core beliefs with which this country was founded upon.
I would much rather be deciding between a Federalist and a Democratic Republican, rather than a Social Democrat (or in the case of BHO an evolutionary socialist) and a Christian Funda...er....Republican.
ETA: for those who may not be totally up to speed on political ideology, Classic Liberal DOES NOT equal Modern Liberal (ie BHO, Hillary, Bill, etc.). A good example of a Classic Liberal would be Thomas Jefferson or John Locke
Littlelebowski
12-12-08, 14:06
Negative. The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins. Even Barry Goldwater spoke about the religious people taking over the Republican Party. I can't tell you how many people I've met that decried Palin's idiotic stance on abortion and abstinence only teaching.
We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 14:09
It seems the real conservatives (which are basically borderline libertarians, or at least classic liberals) are so concerned about alienating the rank and file Religious Right that they won't ditch the non-secular platform which the party has adopted over the last 20 years in favor of what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole, a return to the fundamental core beliefs with which this country was founded upon.
I would much rather be deciding between a Federalist and a Democratic Republican, rather than a Social Democrat (or in the case of BHO an evolutionary socialist) and a Christian Funda...er....Republican.
Agree!!
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 14:10
The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins. Even Barry Goldwater spoke about the religious people taking over the Republican Party. I can't tell you how many people I've met that decried Palin's idiotic stance on abortion and abstinence only teaching.
We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.
Agree again!!111
Obviously you equate: Republican Party = conservative = Christian
That equation is not working out so well - the proof is in the election results.
No, my equation is this:
Republican Party = conservative talkers but quasi-liberal walkers = Christian placaters.
In other words, they are neither conservative by any stretch of the imagination nor are they Christian. In the past, they have tried to garner the votes of Christians by the party platform of pro-life. But to date, they have done nothing to further that plank. In fact, if anything, they've done all they can behind the scenes to remove the plank outright or minimize it. McCain and company lost the vast majority of Christian voters. The vast majority of the Christian voters were sickened by McCain's squalid attempt at election and many rightly chose to stay home rather than vote for him.
Swallow the liberal lie if you will.
Negative. The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins.
And conversely largely ensured that McCain didn't win?
We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.
Agreed. Having said that, I don't see where the Retardicans ever promoted 'religious' stuff.
It seems the real conservatives (which are basically borderline libertarians, or at least classic liberals) are so concerned about alienating the rank and file Religious Right that they won't ditch the non-secular platform which the party has adopted over the last 20 years in favor of what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole, a return to the fundamental core beliefs with which this country was founded upon.
That is some nice verbage. But please tell me specifically what you are talking about? In other words:
1) what is the non-secular platform you speak of?
2) what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-12-08, 14:32
What have the Jesus-freaks tried to legislate? The Jesus-freaks just need to work on their public image. The press is more than happy to paint them as snake-handling, minority-hating, gun-loving bumpkins. Get out there and tell the true story about how conservatives and churchgoers donate more time and money than the compasionate liberals.
Powell and the East Coast Intelligensia "conservatives" hold the moral conservatives in contempt, and are the first to tit for the financial bailout. So if you aren't in the moral part of the conservative party, and you aren't in the fiscal part of the party, what are you?
Sure, there is the bible-thumper museum in Kentucky that has dinosaurs with people, but is that any a faith-based science than the current idlol of Global Warming.
decodeddiesel
12-12-08, 14:43
That is some nice verbage. But please tell me specifically what you are talking about? In other words:
1) what is the non-secular platform you speak of?
2) what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole?
1) Although some were religious, the founding fore-fathers took great steps to separate church and state when drafting the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what I am talking about when I am discussing secularity, or the separation of church and state. I'm sure you know of the concept but others may not. I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread.
2)Two things:
A departure from the Keynesian style economics which this country has adopted on a unified bi-partisan front (bail outs, sub-prime interest rate tampering, etc.), and a return to a laissez faire style free market economy which is driven by supply and demand and not the federal government.
A reaffirmation of the ideas and concepts initially presented in the Declaration of Independence (government with the consent of the governed; state of nature; rights of life, liberty and property) and further emphasized in the Bill of Rights.
1) Although some were religious, the founding fore-fathers took great steps to separate church and state when drafting the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what I am talking about when I am discussing secularity, or the separation of church and state. I'm sure you know of the concept but others may not. I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread. .
Ah, so you really can't ennunciate any "non-secular" party platform planks by the evil Christians.
And just to be clear, the Founders wanted to keep government from dictating via a state-sponsored "religion" what the people could and couldn't worship. They did not mean to take "God" out of government. Far from it. But thats really another point and doesn't have anything to do with the current Retardican platform.
2)Two things:
A departure from the Keynesian style economics which this country has adopted on a unified bi-partisan front (bail outs, sub-prime interest rate tampering, etc.), and a return to a laissez faire style free market economy which is driven by supply and demand and not the federal government.
A reaffirmation of the ideas and concepts initially presented in the Declaration of Independence (government with the consent of the governed; state of nature; rights of life, liberty and property) and further emphasized in the Bill of Rights.
Well on this we agree. The Retardicans have surely let us down when it comes to true conservative fiscal principles.
I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread.
Actually there is no universal moral code that all human beings subscribe to.
Moral codes come from various places but the most powerful is a belief in a higher being and the goodness of human's as children/offspring/creations of this higher being.
There is ample data to support this. But I may just call attention to the fact that religious people are more likely to be generous with charity, help out fellow humans out of their own pockets/resources and to be more honest and ethical in their dealings.
If you look at the asian countries, especially China, but my wife, who is from Japan, says Japan has similar problems and has a continual list of tales from the online japanese newspapers she reads to support it, anyway, the asian countries do not share a judeo-christian background like most western countries and their "business ethics" are basically non-existent. And if you look at most of the western country crooks and unethical business partners, they have no influence from religious belief.
Almost all the great failures of humankind in the last few hundred years (communism/nazi-ism/etc) come from ideas that here is no greater good and no greater being -- do not come from a religious background. There are some counter examples of zealotry being used to justify bad behavior (islamic terrorist etc) but I would put forth that those who do that are using faith as an excuse for political power.
Good people exist everywhere but the culture of the people in general is reflective of their "secularist" or "faith based" history and background. Those that have a background of faith in God tend to be more generous, more ethical cultures and as that faith is diminished in the name of "secularism" that goodness and ethical basis diminishes.
I am not talking about a specific church. The founding fathers wanted to get away from the corruption of state sponsored "churches". They did not want to get away from true faith.
decodeddiesel
12-12-08, 15:09
Ah, so you really can't ennunciate any "non-secular" party platform planks by the evil Christians.
And just to be clear, the Founders wanted to keep government from dictating via a state-sponsored "religion" what the people could and couldn't worship. They did not mean to take "God" out of government. Far from it. But thats really another point and doesn't have anything to do with the current Retardican platform.
Well on this we agree. The Retardicans have surely let us down when it comes to true conservative fiscal principles.
Glad we agree on the core beliefs. However yes I can "ennunciate" (nice word, I'll admit I had to look that one up but I'm not doing bad for a dumb grunt with 2 years in a war zone and no college degree) the platform planks which the Religous Right has slipped into the GOP, but come one my friend, do you really need me to?
Pro-Life (not that I am for abortion, I just don't think it should be a religous arguement)
Teaching "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" or what ever it is that they call it now in public schools. You want to send your kids to a private institution where this is on the syllabus fine, but not in public state funded schools. It should be the leading scientific theory, which currently is the theory of Evolution outlined by Darwin in the "Origin of Species". When we depart from this we are doing our children and the future of this nation a disservice as they won't have the basis of a sound scientific education with which to be competitive in the world
Administratively lead group prayer in public schools...if some kid wants to say a prayer every morning more power to him, but it should be to him or herself and not encouraged or discouraged by the teachers or staff.
Any other legislation which is influenced purely by religious dogma.
I very very much disagree with you and your interpretation of the intent of the founding fore-fathers to create a secular government. The very core of what they were doing to was to create a government where the power to rule was not the Divine Right of Kings, but rather a Democracy of the People. I really hope you're not one of these types who believes liberalism was the result of divine inspiration.
decodeddiesel
12-12-08, 15:19
Actually there is no universal moral code that all human beings subscribe to.
Moral codes come from various places but the most powerful is a belief in a higher being and the goodness of human's as children/offspring/creations of this higher being.
There is ample data to support this. But I may just call attention to the fact that religious people are more likely to be generous with charity, help out fellow humans out of their own pockets/resources and to be more honest and ethical in their dealings.
If you look at the asian countries, especially China, but my wife, who is from Japan, says Japan has similar problems and has a continual list of tales from the online japanese newspapers she reads to support it, anyway, the asian countries do not share a judeo-christian background like most western countries and their "business ethics" are basically non-existent. And if you look at most of the western country crooks and unethical business partners, they have no influence from religious belief.
Almost all the great failures of humankind in the last few hundred years (communism/nazi-ism/etc) come from ideas that here is no greater good and no greater being -- do not come from a religious background. There are some counter examples of zealotry being used to justify bad behavior (islamic terrorist etc) but I would put forth that those who do that are using faith as an excuse for political power.
Good people exist everywhere but the culture of the people in general is reflective of their "secularist" or "faith based" history and background. Those that have a background of faith in God tend to be more generous, more ethical cultures and as that faith is diminished in the name of "secularism" that goodness and ethical basis diminishes.
I am not talking about a specific church. The founding fathers wanted to get away from the corruption of state sponsored "churches". They did not want to get away from true faith.
I would really be interested in some sort of statistical data which supports everything which you have claimed here. I could retort this whole thing with one simple statement. How many aethists are currently on death row? How many are Christian or Muslim or whatever?
Some, actually most, of the greatest tyrants in the history of the world have been fanatically religious.
Look guys, I'll come out and say it, the shit I saw in Iraq and the things I've been though in my life, I really have a hard time with organized Middle Eastern religions (yes I am talking about Christians here too). Frankly I about as atheistic as they come, but I have tolerance for people to believe whatever they would like to believe. I just don't think those religious beliefs have any place in our government.
ETA: Oh and about Powell. I sure would like to find accounts of his blind support of a young charismatic politician regardless of skin color somewhere. Not trying to pull out the race card here come on...
Littlelebowski
12-12-08, 16:53
Atheism has precisely nothing to do with communism's killings and I'd be happy to name countless religious zealots who have killed in the name of religion. As far as killing for power, isn't that kind of an obvious goal?
I don't think it's Western religion that gives us our values so much as Western culture.
I'm an atheist as is my father's side of the family and we don't lie, cheat, steal, etc...
I don't think it's Western religion that gives us our values so much as Western culture.
Western Culture is based on judeo-christian values, regardless of whether or not an individual has faith or not. The culture comes from that.
I'm an atheist as is my father's side of the family and we don't lie, cheat, steal, etc...
I freely admit that an individual may be a good person and draw moral values from something besides faith. Faith however is the strongest and biggest, but not the exclusive source of moral values.
As someone who definitely could be described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, I could not possibly agree more strongly. The majority of that category is hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face over the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc.
The evangelical Christian community has somehow decided that legislation is an acceptable method of evangelism. I attribute this mostly to cowardice, fear, and a complete lack of the appropriate combination of faith and testicular fortitude. As a whole, they've done such a poor job of preaching the Word and spreading the Gospel that (it's hard when you don't practice what you preach) that they've given up and hope to enforce their beliefs through law. They've lost sight of the idea that we need to lead people to the Lord and let Him change their hearts, not just legislate them into falling in line.
Meanwhile, they're alienating the middle so much, and being painted so unfavorably by the media, that all they do is keep the group that's more favorable to them out of power. Because they refuse to accept that the government might have to recognize that not everyone shares their belief system, they won't compromise and end up with a government that is outright hostile to their beliefs. Go figure.
I agree. I pastored for 12 years in a conservative evangelical denomination.
The USA is not God's chosen replacement for Israel nor was it intended by the founders to be a theocracy.
Buckaroo
decodeddiesel
12-12-08, 17:39
I agree. I pastored for 12 years in a conservative evangelical denomination.
The USA is not God's chosen replacement for Israel nor was it intended by the founders to be a theocracy.
Buckaroo
My hat is off to you Sir, and LOKNLOD as well.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-12-08, 17:59
Since this is kind of a Military and Culture conversation, anybody read Hanson's "Carnage & Culture"?
Removing religion from western culture is like like trying to separate out the the yolk from the white in scrambled eggs.
I think people forget that it is Freedom of Religion, not freedom from religion. Right wingers get whacked when they try to do something and they are Christian, while the lefties are always doing it for the children.
You all should really hope that there is an objective moraility and right and wrong. With out that, anything can go.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 20:18
Western Culture is based on judeo-christian values, regardless of whether or not an individual has faith or not. The culture comes from that.
I guess the Greeks and Romans were a fluke.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 20:20
Removing religion from western culture is like like trying to separate out the the yolk from the white in scrambled eggs.
Removing it from the government is QUITE a bit different than removing it from the culture - wouldn't you agree?
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 21:16
Huh? :confused:
Here is a quote from an article by John Davis Lewis for The Objective Standard which nicely summaries what I am alluding to:
The moral contradiction between the biblical mandate of self-sacrifice and the factual need for human beings to pursue and protect their life-serving values is destroying the Republican party. Republicans face a decision. They may conclude that they have failed their faith and that they must seek redemption by injecting religion more deeply into politics. Or they may realize that their faith has failed them and that they must abandon the crusade, commit themselves to individual rights, and set forth to defend freedom, limited government, and capitalism.
Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/republican-alternative.asp)
Now, I do not subscribe 100% to Objectivism nor do I think Ayn Rand had all of the answers, but I think the Republican Party would do well to heed many of the tenets espoused.
John Davis Lewis' opinion is just that. And in my opinion its wrong. Two opinions worth the same two cents.
Face it, Bush was a social democrat in more ways than one. He was NOT a conservative. He bowed to the leftists more times than I can count.
Compassion towards the poor or the ill is a Christian principle upheld by many churches. But I don't recall any of them that claim its the government's business. Quite the opposite. We are charged to take care of one another as we would brothers..that means individually or through like minded groups. I know of no evangelical minister that preaches that government should step in and do for us what we fail to do for ourselves as a society.
Lewis makes other fallacious arguments such as his opinion on immigration. His little pronouncement about immigration paints the real picture of Lewis' agenda.
While Lewis may be a learned fellow, like many academicians (or professional students), he needs to get out more. The sooner the leftists can convince Americans to forego their principles and join the rest of the corrupt and moral-less world, the better they will like it.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 23:39
As I stated in the last post, I don't buy into the Objectivist argument 100% - their stance on immigration I have issues with.
But "faith-based initiatives"? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just Bush who wanted that. The whole point being much of what Christianity (or at least the modern versions of it) promote is anti-capitalist. The Republican Party doesn't know whether it's coming or going.
But "faith-based initiatives"? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just Bush who wanted that. The whole point being much of what Christianity (or at least the modern versions of it) promote is anti-capitalist. The Republican Party doesn't know whether it's coming or going.
Faith based initiatives, you are correct, it wasn't just Bush that wanted it. In fact there are many folks on both sides of the aisle that thought it a good idea. Government incentives to non-governmental groups to help them help other people...not a bad idea. And a much better idea than government providing all the answers and trying to do it all themselves with massive bureaucracies with all the attendant waste, fraud and abuse.
As for the Retardicans not knowing whether they are coming or going, I totally agree. They haven't produced real leaders much less leadership.
I think Republicans need to sit their fatasses down and make some firm decisions and committments as to what they believe, who they represent and draw a deep line in the sand. Until they do that, they will continue to be watered down and depthless. And if they don't do that as a minimum, they deserve to have their butts handed to them in each and every election.
I think the bottom line is this: Republicans are sick to death of voting for Retardicans that are in fact Democrats Lite. Republicans are sick to death of voting for the lessor of two evils. Republicans want to vote for someone that will actually uphold the Constitution and not wipe their asses on it. Republicans want to vote for someone that loves their country FIRST and is not an avowed globalist at the expense of national interest. Republicans want a leader than can effectively COMMUNICATE. Republicans want someone to lead them that is proud to be a conservative grounded in Constitutional principles and one that doesn't need to always apologize to the leftists for their beliefs and principles. EDITED to add: Republicans are also darned tired of the fat cat political turds within the party that will do everything they can to protect those that have an "R" in front of their name no matter their crime, i.e. pedophiles, perverts, bribe takers, philanderers that get caught and fail to do the right thing...in other words, don't be afraid to clean house and take out the trash.
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 00:00
Faith based initiatives, you are correct, it wasn't just Bush that wanted it. In fact there are many folks on both sides of the aisle that thought it a good idea. Government incentives to non-governmental groups to help them help other people...not a bad idea. And a much better idea than government providing all the answers and trying to do it all themselves with massive bureaucracies with all the attendant waste, fraud and abuse.
As for the Retardicans not knowing whether they are coming or going, I totally agree. They haven't produced real leaders much less leadership.
I think Republicans need to sit their fatasses down and make some firm decisions and committments as to what they believe, who they represent and draw a deep line in the sand. Until they do that, they will continue to be watered down and depthless. And if they don't do that as a minimum, they deserve to have their butts handed to them in each and every election.
I think the bottom line is this: Republicans are sick to death of voting for Retardicans that are in fact Democrats Lite. Republicans are sick to death of voting for the lessor of two evils. Republicans want to vote for someone that will actually uphold the Constitution and not wipe their asses on it. Republicans want to vote for someone that loves their country FIRST and is not an avowed globalist at the expense of national interest. Republicans want a leader than can effectively COMMUNICATE. Republicans want someone to lead them that is proud to be a conservative grounded in Constitutional principles and one that doesn't need to always apologize to the leftists for their beliefs and principles.
Agreed!!1!
:cool:
decodeddiesel
12-13-08, 00:04
Faith based initiatives, you are correct, it wasn't just Bush that wanted it. In fact there are many folks on both sides of the aisle that thought it a good idea. Government incentives to non-governmental groups to help them help other people...not a bad idea. And a much better idea than government providing all the answers and trying to do it all themselves with massive bureaucracies with all the attendant waste, fraud and abuse.
As for the Retardicans not knowing whether they are coming or going, I totally agree. They haven't produced real leaders much less leadership.
I think Republicans need to sit their fatasses down and make some firm decisions and committments as to what they believe, who they represent and draw a deep line in the sand. Until they do that, they will continue to be watered down and depthless. And if they don't do that as a minimum, they deserve to have their butts handed to them in each and every election.
I think the bottom line is this: Republicans are sick to death of voting for Retardicans that are in fact Democrats Lite. Republicans are sick to death of voting for the lessor of two evils. Republicans want to vote for someone that will actually uphold the Constitution and not wipe their asses on it. Republicans want to vote for someone that loves their country FIRST and is not an avowed globalist at the expense of national interest. Republicans want a leader than can effectively COMMUNICATE. Republicans want someone to lead them that is proud to be a conservative grounded in Constitutional principles and one that doesn't need to always apologize to the leftists for their beliefs and principles. EDITED to add: Republicans are also darned tired of the fat cat political turds within the party that will do everything they can to protect those that have an "R" in front of their name no matter their crime, i.e. pedophiles, perverts, bribe takers, philanderers that get caught and fail to do the right thing...in other words, don't be afraid to clean house and take out the trash.
I too agree with this.
The moral contradiction between the biblical mandate of self-sacrifice and the factual need for human beings to pursue and protect their life-serving values is destroying the Republican party. Republicans face a decision. They may conclude that they have failed their faith and that they must seek redemption by injecting religion more deeply into politics. Or they may realize that their faith has failed them and that they must abandon the crusade, commit themselves to individual rights, and set forth to defend freedom, limited government, and capitalism.
I don't particularly like with the "either-or" nature of the above quote. I do agree that the forceful injection of religion into politics is a symptom of having "failed their faith" but I very much disagree that the commitment to individual rights is somehow in conflict with the commitment to religion.
The religious right must realize that in order for their own success, they must support a society where everyone can succeed -- a society based on "individual rights...freedom, limited government, and capitalism."
The fact is that as a group, the Christian right is so short-sighted that they can't seem to understand that to people who don't already share their belief system, arguements of right vs. wrong framed within the context of that belief system don't carry the same meaning. Point in case: One can't argue that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, to people who don't believe the Bible carries any more weight than a copy of Aesop's Fables (or that we should do *whatever* because the Koran says so, etc.). As Christians it's our duty to win souls for Christ, and then peoples' actions will follow suit -- NOT to legislative thier bodies into submission.
The conservatives of all types -- social, fiscal, religious, secular, everyone -- must realize that we all need the same free, individualistic, capitalistic society for everyone to prosper and have the freedom to pursue their own interests. That mutual goal is what it will take the bring the Republican party success.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-13-08, 00:43
Removing it from the government is QUITE a bit different than removing it from the culture - wouldn't you agree?
The issue with removing "Religious" influence from government becomes a ban on any kind of legislation based on traditional values. At the same time the wacky ideas of the godless heathen are the only "acceptable" values that can be codified into law.
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 00:46
The issue with removing "Religious" influence from government becomes a ban on any kind of legislation based on traditional values. At the same time the wacky ideas of the godless heathen are the only "acceptable" values that can be codified into law.
You mean like the Christian Fundamentalist-fueled ban on stem cell research?
The religious right must realize that in order for their own success, they must support a society where everyone can succeed -- a society based on "individual rights...freedom, limited government, and capitalism."
I can't think of anyone in the "religious right" that would disagree with you or that espouses anything any different.
The fact is that as a group, the Christian right is so short-sighted that they can't seem to understand that to people who don't already share their belief system, arguements of right vs. wrong framed within the context of that belief system don't carry the same meaning.
I think here that you are painting with too broad a brush. I think many do understand that non-Christians won't, don't or can't understand the Christian belief system. But, in my opinion, there isn't anything wrong with that. In fact, it shoud be that way. Else, what makes a Christian any different from a non-Christian if he didn't have a different foundation for his beliefs? Do you put forth that the Christian should sacrifice HIS beliefs to placate someone else? To me that is wrong on many levels. And what is a Christian "Right"? Is there a Christian "Left"? Or is this in reality a tool that is used by the Leftists to try and divide and conquer? I think it is.
Point in case: One can't argue that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, to people who don't believe the Bible carries any more weight than a copy of Aesop's Fables (or that we should do *whatever* because the Koran says so, etc.). As Christians it's our duty to win souls for Christ, and then peoples' actions will follow suit -- NOT to legislative thier bodies into submission.
Yet again, too broad of a brush. While many Christians are opposed to homosexuality for different reasons, I don't believe it is anywhere mandated by church orthodoxy that Christians are to "hate the sinner". No, just the opposite: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I agree with you that it is our duty to win souls for Christ if we can, by following his example and thus leading by His example and treating others as you yourself would want to be treated. This goes for everyone, gays included. What I believe many Christians are opposed to is the hard leftist agenda that includes shoving "gayness" down society's throat to the point that they mandate it taught to our kids in the government schools, worshipping at the alter of global warming as a means to control society, and so on and so on. I think most people, Christians and non-Christians, are happy to live and let live - while the leftists are just the opposite. They want to force things on us for our "own good" or for the "sake of the children" or to make us "better world citizens".
Sadly, the Downstream Media is populated by leftists so those folks in our society that intake their bilge are inundated by the "squeaky wheel" noise and end up believing that the leftists are the majority. The rest of us are just so much fly-over country that "just don't get it". Leftists want us to believe that we are the freaks of nature.
Riiiiiiight.......
The conservatives of all types -- social, fiscal, religious, secular, everyone -- must realize that we all need the same free, individualistic, capitalistic society for everyone to prosper and have the freedom to pursue their own interests. That mutual goal is what it will take the bring the Republican party success.
Agreed. To me, that is the foundation of conservatism, not liberalism. And the sooner the Retardicans refigure that out, the better off we will be.
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 01:06
And what is a Christian "Right"? Is there a Christian "Left"? Or is this in reality a tool that is used by the Leftists to try and divide and conquer? I think it is.
This is a big sticking point. There are MANY regular run-of-the-mill Christians who are on the political left and who are Democrats. I have no doubt that you think it's some kind of liberal conspiracy - I almost hate to break it to you but despite what you (and far too many others) think all the Christians are NOT Republicans.
I have heard FAR TOO MANY religious right conservative Christians imply or expressly state that "if you voted for Barak Obama you're not a Christian" etc.
How is this helpful?
This is a big sticking point. There are MANY regular run-of-the-mill Christians who are on the political left and who are Democrats. I have no doubt that you think it's some kind of liberal conspiracy - I almost hate to break it to you but despite what you (and far too many others) think all the Christians are NOT Republicans.
On the contrary. I don't think it is a liberal conspiracy. I use tin foil to wrap my leftovers, not my head.
I have heard FAR TOO MANY religious right conservative Christians imply or expressly state that "if you voted for Barak Obama you're not a Christian" etc.
How is this helpful?
Its not helpful. I would have to say though that if one were Christian and voted for BHO, he should check his priorities. Christians, or those that profess to be Christians, are not flawless people. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of "Christian" churches that went astray. Paul and Timothy spoke of it frequently.
Concurrently, there are plenty of gun owners that voted for BHO and turned around and ran out and bought guns...I wouldn't exactly call them pro-2A though they may wrongly feel that they are - their actions don't prove it.
I agree with you.
They need to forget worrying about abortion, worrying about prayer in school and 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, and get to a stripped down, lean secular conservatism.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Social issues matter just as much as issues like the 2nd Amendment, the free market, and a sound (conservative) fiscal policy. True conservatism will also conserve the moral and family values that made this country great.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-13-08, 02:24
You mean like the Christian Fundamentalist-fueled ban on stem cell research?
There is no ban on stem cell research. Period. The federal government will not fund research done on based on the embryos. That is a difference that never seems to be fully explained. If it is such good idea, sink your own money into it.
El Mac,
I think we're actually tracking pretty closely...headed to the same destination, if perhaps from different angles.
I will also say up front that if I paint with too broad a brush, it's a brush that was widened during the course of the last election cycle. I'm basing much of this on what I saw and heard locally and knowing our demographics I think some of these very issues are more exasperated here.
I think here that you are painting with too broad a brush. I think many do understand that non-Christians won't, don't or can't understand the Christian belief system. But, in my opinion, there isn't anything wrong with that. In fact, it shoud be that way. Else, what makes a Christian any different from a non-Christian if he didn't have a different foundation for his beliefs?
Agreed, that wasn't really my point though...I was thinking more in terms of putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Like explaining to someone why they need an stake the carrier keys in their AR, when they only own a Glock ;)
Do you put forth that the Christian should sacrifice HIS beliefs to placate someone else? To me that is wrong on many levels.
Absolutely not -- we shouldn't have to sacrifice our beliefs for others, we just need to keep perspective that we don't expect them to sacrifice theirs for us.
And what is a Christian "Right"? Is there a Christian "Left"? Or is this in reality a tool that is used by the Leftists to try and divide and conquer? I think it is.
There are certainly people who claim both "Christian" and "Left" but generally speaking (my broad brush again) I think in that case I think those two descriptors are merely coincidental, and not necessarily linked as a critical part of their self-identity. I.E., while there are many who would happily describe themselves as "right-wing Christians" as a single description, the others would likely describe themselves as liberals, who happen to be Christians. Making things even more complex, I think denomination, and even geography (though to a much lesser extent), become big factors here. At the risk of using stereotypes as examples, comparing a Baptist from the South to a Episcopalian from New England. Both consider themselves Christians, but which is more likely to vote conservative? Even more telling, which is most likely to identify themself as a "right wing Christian"?
Yet again, too broad of a brush. While many Christians are opposed to homosexuality for different reasons, I don't believe it is anywhere mandated by church orthodoxy that Christians are to "hate the sinner". No, just the opposite: "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." I agree with you that it is our duty to win souls for Christ if we can, by following his example and thus leading by His example and treating others as you yourself would want to be treated. This goes for everyone, gays included. What I believe many Christians are opposed to is the hard leftist agenda that includes shoving "gayness" down society's throat to the point that they mandate it taught to our kids in the government schools, worshipping at the alter of global warming as a means to control society, and so on and so on. I think most people, Christians and non-Christians, are happy to live and let live - while the leftists are just the opposite. They want to force things on us for our "own good" or for the "sake of the children" or to make us "better world citizens".
We're on the same page here, and I definitely agree about leftist issues being shoved down society's throat. My intended point was that to combat this, we need to learn to express our beliefs more eloquently than just saying "that's wrong cause the Bible says so" to people who think the Bible is a joke.
Moreover, I think as a group we let them keep us so busy fighting over topics that are so deeply rooted in personal beliefs, while we let larger issues that effect everyone greatly, like foreign and fiscal policy, slide. This goes back to the root of many problems in the Republican party and is the source of much of the animosity toward the "Christian Right" by other segments of the conservatives.
Sadly, the Downstream Media is populated by leftists so those folks in our society that intake their bilge are inundated by the "squeaky wheel" noise and end up believing that the leftists are the majority. The rest of us are just so much fly-over country that "just don't get it". Leftists want us to believe that we are the freaks of nature.
Yep. Really when you look at Obama's margin in the popular vote -- then consider his excessive media coverage (and outright praise), rallying of minorities, the overall discontent of the public with the current administration, and the much-maligned, weak Republican ticket -- it's actually pretty narrow and far from a landslide. To me, that says a lot.
Its not helpful. I would have to say though that if one were Christian and voted for BHO, he should check his priorities.
Concurrently, there are plenty of gun owners that voted for BHO and turned around and ran out and bought guns...I wouldn't exactly call them pro-2A though they may wrongly feel that they are - their actions don't prove it.
Yep...
Good discussion but I should be in bed! I have gun club orientation in the morning, yay!
Originally Posted by LOKNLOD View Post
As someone who definitely could be described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, I could not possibly agree more strongly. The majority of that category is hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face over the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc.
The evangelical Christian community has somehow decided that legislation is an acceptable method of evangelism. I attribute this mostly to cowardice, fear, and a complete lack of the appropriate combination of faith and testicular fortitude. As a whole, they've done such a poor job of preaching the Word and spreading the Gospel that (it's hard when you don't practice what you preach) that they've given up and hope to enforce their beliefs through law. They've lost sight of the idea that we need to lead people to the Lord and let Him change their hearts, not just legislate them into falling in line.
Meanwhile, they're alienating the middle so much, and being painted so unfavorably by the media, that all they do is keep the group that's more favorable to them out of power. Because they refuse to accept that the government might have to recognize that not everyone shares their belief system, they won't compromise and end up with a government that is outright hostile to their beliefs. Go figure.
I agree. I pastored for 12 years in a conservative evangelical denomination.
The USA is not God's chosen replacement for Israel nor was it intended by the founders to be a theocracy.
Buckaroo
As a Christian (albeit a poor one) I have to agree as well. Part of freedom of religion means that there is no coercion of others through state institutions or efforts. This means no trying to enforce religious codes or beliefs via legislation. As such the Republican party, they need to distance themselves from those individuals who would do so. That element is what is costing the party. The religious right also needs to understand that they have no right to control other peoples behaviors and that so long as those others individuals actions are within the existing law and constitutional freedoms that they can gripe all they want, but they are forbidden from interfering in the lives of others. The Republican party needs to stop standing in the way of Americans principles such as freedom (from government interference in private lives) and the pursuit of happiness (in what ever legal manner an individual may chose). Freedom of religion means that each individual is free of government interference and coercion so that they may practice their own religion.
As a Christian (albeit a poor one) I have to agree as well. Part of freedom of religion means that there is no coercion of others through state institutions or efforts. This means no trying to enforce religious codes or beliefs via legislation. As such the Republican party, they need to distance themselves from those individuals who would do so. That element is what is costing the party. The religious right also needs to understand that they have no right to control other peoples behaviors and that so long as those others individuals actions are within the existing law and constitutional freedoms that they can gripe all they want, but they are forbidden from interfering in the lives of others. The Republican party needs to stop standing in the way of Americans principles such as freedom (from government interference in private lives) and the pursuit of happiness (in what ever legal manner an individual may chose). Freedom of religion means that each individual is free of government interference and coercion so that they may practice their own religion.
I don't see where Christians are legislating anything. Again, what most Christians are trying to do is keep government out of our TV, schools and offices dictating what will be taught to our kids whether we like it or not, how to display "Holiday Greetings" and so on. Christians generally react to the Leftists onslaughts against their beliefs. Most Christians are quite happy to go to work, raise their kids, pay their taxes, go to Church, and enjoy their hobbies - but without the government mind control that is foisted on us by the Leftists and their collaborators in the media and academia.
The Republican party needs to stop standing in the way of Americans principles such as freedom (from government interference in private lives) and the pursuit of happiness (in what ever legal manner an individual may chose). Freedom of religion means that each individual is free of government interference and coercion so that they may practice their own religion
Please provide an example of what you speak. I'm all ears...
Littlelebowski
12-13-08, 12:44
It's pretty obvious that most anti abortion legislation and non Jewish backed funding for Israel is christian based.
It's pretty obvious that most anti abortion legislation and non Jewish backed funding for Israel is christian based.
Ok, I'll give you that abortion is a point that Christians are pretty black and white on. So thats one point. That said, I think there are other people involved in the issue that aren't necessarily hard-core Christians but see the obvious blight on society caused by lack of respect for life personified by the act of aborting a baby.
Any others?
Specifically, what "coercion" of others is being promulgated on the people by the State/government on behalf of Christians?
As someone who definitely could be described as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist, I could not possibly agree more strongly. The majority of that category is hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face over the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc.
The evangelical Christian community has somehow decided that legislation is an acceptable method of evangelism. I attribute this mostly to cowardice, fear, and a complete lack of the appropriate combination of faith and testicular fortitude. As a whole, they've done such a poor job of preaching the Word and spreading the Gospel that (it's hard when you don't practice what you preach) that they've given up and hope to enforce their beliefs through law. They've lost sight of the idea that we need to lead people to the Lord and let Him change their hearts, not just legislate them into falling in line.
Meanwhile, they're alienating the middle so much, and being painted so unfavorably by the media, that all they do is keep the group that's more favorable to them out of power. Because they refuse to accept that the government might have to recognize that not everyone shares their belief system, they won't compromise and end up with a government that is outright hostile to their beliefs. Go figure.
I agree. I pastored for 12 years in a conservative evangelical denomination.
The USA is not God's chosen replacement for Israel nor was it intended by the founders to be a theocracy.
Buckaroo
This, right here, is good stuff. Well said, LOKNLOD and Buckaroo.
The Republican Party bought into the conservatism = religious fundamentalism meme, and repeated it until most of the country believed it. Unintended consequences. Until they can break the equation in the minds of the voting public, they can never be the true conservative party that their base wants them to be. In addition to this, as has been said earlier, the Republican Party also continuously allows itself to get bogged down in wedge issues. Until the Republican Party can unass itself, do some serious soul searching, and come out with a clear set of goals and platforms, it will continue to lose elections. Conservatism has proven to be an election-winner. I think it's pretty easy to see what the Republican Party isn't espousing.
-B
Littlelebowski
12-13-08, 12:58
Ok, I'll give you that abortion is a point that Christians are pretty black and white on. So thats one point. That said, I think there are other people involved in the issue that aren't necessarily hard-core Christians but see the obvious blight on society caused by lack of respect for life personified by the act of aborting a baby.
Any others?
Specifically, what "coercion" of others is being promulgated on the people by the State/government on behalf of Christians?
I never said the word coercion and it's a verifiable fact about christians being the overwhelming majority of anti abortion activists.
The Republican Party bought into the conservatism = religious fundamentalism meme, and repeated it until most of the country believed it.
I believe it is the opposite. The Christian fundamentalist bought into the lie of the Retardicans in that they would consistently appoint strict constructionist jurors, reduce the footprint of government, provide an avenue for school vouchers and an overall reduction of the people's dependence on the government for everything - womb to tomb.
In virtually all cases the Christian fundamentalist was courted for their votes by a party that never intended to act on their stated goals. Rather the corrupt became more corrupted and polluted by the nirvana of drunken DC power. Once into DC power, they drank the koolaid and all bets were off.
This time, the largest majority of Christians no longer believed the lie. While they may have slogged to the polls to vote for the lessor of two evils, they did so unhappily. This translated to less campaign money and less "fire in the belly" for the Retardican candidate and ultimately a defeat. So be it. The Retardicans have reaped what they had sewn.
Until they can break the equation in the minds of the voting public, they can never be the true conservative party that their base wants them to be. In addition to this, as has been said earlier, the Republican Party also continuously allows itself to get bogged down in wedge issues. Until the Republican Party can unass itself, do some serious soul searching, and come out with a clear set of goals and platforms, it will continue to lose elections. Conservatism has proven to be an election-winner. I think it's pretty easy to see what the Republican Party isn't espousing.
Until the Retardican party can understand that the center/right voting block wants them to not only espouse conservative principles but actually ENACT them and stand for them in the face of the Leftist storm that will surely be, they will be doomed to be regarded as Democrats Lite and merely the lessor of two sorry evils. Either way, evil, corrupt and generally useless.
I never said the word coercion and it's a verifiable fact about christians being the overwhelming majority of anti abortion activists.
Perhaps you didn't use the word "coercion" but it was used in this thread by another poster. As for whether or not Christians are the overwhelming majority of pro-life activists, well thats a good thing. That means they are standing on principle. Something that society doesn't look to kindly on...and another reason they don't dig pro-2A supporters.
I believe it is the opposite. The Christian fundamentalist bought into the lie of the Retardicans in that they would consistently appoint strict constructionist jurors, reduce the footprint of government, provide an avenue for school vouchers and an overall reduction of the people's dependence on the government for everything - womb to tomb.
That largely buys into the notion that the clout/strength of the Republican Party lies in their voting base being predominately Christian fundamentalist, which it's not. Fundamentalism as a whole is still not the dominant majority of voters. It's a large body, yes, and a growing one, but not the largest. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, so the distinction is important.
-B
I don't see where Christians are legislating anything. Again, what most Christians are trying to do is keep government out of our TV, schools and offices dictating what will be taught to our kids whether we like it or not, how to display "Holiday Greetings" and so on.
Say what? Who are some of the biggest promoters of censorship on the airwaves all in the name of 'family / christian values'? That's right, religious (specificaly Christian) groups. What about the 'temperance' movement. THose are two easy ones right there.
Christians generally react to the Leftists onslaughts against their beliefs.
And how are they? Yes some of the things are uncomfortable to many (evolution for example) and yes there are elements of the left that would love nothing more than to stop out Christianity. But so what? This is an excuse to use the government as a counter punch?
Most Christians are quite happy to go to work, raise their kids, pay their taxes, go to Church, and enjoy their hobbies - but without the government mind control that is foisted on us by the Leftists and their collaborators in the media and academia.
are quite happy to go to work, raise their kids, pay their taxes, go to Church, and enjoy their hobbies - but without the Christians trying to use the government to foist their own mind control (I.e. blue laws, there is another example).
And if you are for Christians using government to protect their beliefs and set up society around them, then what happens when / if another religious group eventually comes along and has more voters than Christians and they want their beliefs 'protected' and foisted on the public by the government?
Please provide an example of what you speak. I'm all ears...
See above
That largely buys into the notion that the clout/strength of the Republican Party lies in their voting base being predominately Christian fundamentalist, which it's not. Fundamentalism as a whole is still not the dominant majority of voters. It's a large body, yes, and a growing one, but not the largest. Not all Christians are fundamentalist, so the distinction is important.
-B
Not sure how you interpreted that out of the paragraph of mine that you quoted from.
I'm not sure of the actual numbers of Christian fundamentalists (whatever that is) versus Christian non-fundamentalist (whatever that is), but suffice it to say that without those voting blocks, the Retardicans will never again get elected to national prominence and even come close to resembling the conservative movement of the Reaganaunts of the 80s or the Gingrichites of the early 90s.
When the Retardicans turned their backs on the Christian base and their Conservative base, they were doomed to failure.
Say what? Who are some of the biggest promoters of censorship on the airwaves all in the name of 'family / christian values'? That's right, religious (specificaly Christian) groups. What about the 'temperance' movement. THose are two easy ones right there.
If you are talking about preventing pornography filth infecting prime time TV, then I'm all for that kind of censorship.
And how are they? Yes some of the things are uncomfortable to many (evolution for example) and yes there are elements of the left that would love nothing more than to stop out Christianity. But so what? This is an excuse to use the government as a counter punch?
How do Christians use government that is run by Leftists (you know, the good folks that despise Christians) as a counterpunch? Kind of a non-sequitor if you ask me.
...are quite happy to go to work, raise their kids, pay their taxes, go to Church, and enjoy their hobbies - but without the Christians trying to use the government to foist their own mind control (I.e. blue laws, there is another example).
I've seen very few Blue Laws remaining anywhere. When was the last time in the last 20 years you have seen a Blue Law enacted?
And if you are for Christians using government to protect their beliefs and set up society around them, then what happens when / if another religious group eventually comes along and has more voters than Christians and they want their beliefs 'protected' and foisted on the public by the government?
I'm not for that. I'm for government staying out of people's lives generally. But I am not holding my breath that a government full of Leftists/marxist types is planning on doing that. They have a record unlike any other save the Fascists for interjecting the "political commissars" and thought police...
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 16:10
As I stated in the last post, I don't buy into the Objectivist argument 100% - their stance on immigration I have issues with.
But "faith-based initiatives"? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just Bush who wanted that. The whole point being much of what Christianity (or at least the modern versions of it) promote is anti-capitalist. The Republican Party doesn't know whether it's coming or going.
You have to look at the faith based initiatives according to the alternatives on the table. Given that the government will spend X dollars on drug treatment programs for addicts, should they spend all the money on inefficient government led programs with low success rates, or should the money be sent into a program that has a much higher success rate and a much more efficient operation that happens to be religiously affiliated?
A lot of church related charities have very solid records of performance, often far better than those that are government funded.
None of that really addresses whether or not the government should be spending X dollars on drug treatment in the first place. That's a separate issue altogether.
The faith based initiative push was meant to open the door for religiously affiliated charities to obtain the same money that every other charity can access...and often with much poorer results for the dollars spent.
It's not something I think the federal government should be doing at all....but that view isn't going to prevail in Washington. Government shouldn't be "helping" people...that's what private charities are for.
If you are talking about preventing pornography filth infecting prime time TV, then I'm all for that kind of censorship.
I've seen very few Blue Laws remaining anywhere. When was the last time in the last 20 years you have seen a Blue Law enacted?
I can't buy alcohol from a store on Sunday in the State of Indiana. There's a blue law for you. You can buy and consume in a restaurant on Sunday, but that's it. When I was working 6 days a week, and grocery shopping on my only day off - Sunday - it was a real pain.
As far as "pornography filth" goes. Who is it that tries to ban art exhibits featuring erotic works? Most of those exhibits would go unnoticed by the general population if no for the negative publicity. Who is it that protests movies that they haven't seen because they know they would be offended by them?
The fact is that prime time network TV is dying out because FCC censorship prevents them from showing compelling and competitive broadcasting that can stand up to the cable channels. I'll take almost any HBO series - Sopranos, The Wire, 6 Feet Under, True Blood, Deadwood, etc. - over the boring and derivative crap on network TV. The fact that network TV cannot depict how real people talk and behave makes it fake.
I'm a parent too, and I decide what my child (5 years old) is allowed to watch. Most of that is simply by being at home when he is and supervising his behavior. My HDTV's and cable boxes allow a myriad of options to regulate what is accessible. As a precaution, I have placed a PIN code restriction on all pay-per-view items. I may block channels or content by TV rating level as he gets older, if I see a need.
I also have the computer he is allowed to use set up to allow him to visit only the internet sites I authorize. All unrestricted computers in the house have password protection.
Regulating what my child sees/hears is MY responsibility. I don't need the government telling me what I am allowed to see or hear.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 16:17
Point in case: One can't argue that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, to people who don't believe the Bible carries any more weight than a copy of Aesop's Fables (or that we should do *whatever* because the Koran says so, etc.). As Christians it's our duty to win souls for Christ, and then peoples' actions will follow suit -- NOT to legislative thier bodies into submission.
...and yet, the reason why homosexuality has become a campaign issue is because militant homosexual groups have tried to use the courts as a means to force their view of life upon the rest of society whether the rest of society wants them to or not.
I don't recall hearing many Christian groups calling for prohibiting gays from owning property or sitting on juries or voting or any of the other civil rights we all enjoy. I do, however, see a belated and frankly weak response to a politically correct jihad being waged by people none of us on this board would want to have as our neighbor.
We are in the midst of a culture war. The way I see it we can either stand united against that sort of nonsense or we can continue to shoot at people who are our natural allies while a bunch of San Fransisco liberals keep accumulating power. If a dude wants to do stuff with another dude in the privacy of his own bedroom, so be it...but it doesn't end there. If you want to see the logical end of that politically correct nonsense, find some pictures of what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair. I sincerely doubt anyone on this forum, Christian or not, wants to see THAT become the future of our society.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 16:24
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Social issues matter just as much as issues like the 2nd Amendment, the free market, and a sound (conservative) fiscal policy. True conservatism will also conserve the moral and family values that made this country great.
Indeed. Washington himself noted that personal morality among the population was a necessary precondition for a free people.
That doesn't mean everybody has to take communion together or our society will be doomed to go to hell in a handbasket. What it means is that DECENT PEOPLE of all stripes can recognize what is right and wrong.
I've been out with TheKatar and Templar and lots of other M4C personalities. Even though they may not share my faith, we all seem to agree on the big stuff. My contention now will be the same as my contention at the Marietta Aplebee's:
We agree on FAR more than we disagree on, and that agreement should be a basis we can unite around. Often what I see is people more worried about Pat Robertson than Nancy Pelosi. That's like being worried about the kid vandalizing your mailbox while there's a homicidal maniac trying to force his way into your house.
I've said this on other boards and I'll say it here too: I'm one of them evil Christian conservatives everybody is always griping about. If someone on the right side of the spectrum is more worried about me than Barak Obama or Nancy Pelosi then they need to re-assess their thought process. Evangelical Christians like myself aren't trying to get legislation passed that forces people to be Baptists. Why resisting the transformation of our schools into politically correct indoctrination camps gets turned into the same thing as forcing everybody to be a Baptist is beyond me.
How does allowing gays to marry "force their view of life upon the rest of society"? It's not like anyone is going to be forced to become gay or to enter into a gay marriage.
How exactly will gay marriage harm any heterosexual person or couple? I can't see any negative affects on me or my family.
All it means is that they will be given the same legal status as any other married couple. Of course, gay marriage will increase the benefits paid by companies that only allow spouses to be covered by health insurance. But many companies already have "domestic partner" coverage, so the private sector is doing what they need to do to attract that best workers regardless of sexual orientation.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 16:40
How does allowing gays to marry "force their view of life upon the rest of society"? It's not like anyone is going to be forced to become gay or to enter into a gay marriage.
...when somebody shows up to the courts and demands that the court enforce their view on the rest of society then it's a BIG problem. If "gay marriage" is going to happen then it should go through the legislative process....not through the robed tyrants who sit in some judicial positions.
Political correctness doesn't end at gay marriage, bro. That's just a step in the ultimate direction.
Let me see if I understand here:
If a "robed tyrant" decides that a law is unconstitutional, like the DC gun ban, and strikes it down, it's OK. This is understood to be the job of the judicial branch of government.
If another "robed tyrant" decides that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, it's NOT OK.
How is one any different from the other? It took many court decisions to strike down unconstitutional laws in the Jim Crow era South. The legislatures in those states wasn't going to do it on their own.
That's the funny thing about the Constitution and individual rights. Government by the majority has a tendency to deprive the minority of their rights by popular vote. The courts are there to make sure tyranny of the majority doesn't happen. The Founding Fathers understood this, which is why they set up a Constitutional Republic with 3-branches, and NOT a Democracy.
Now, I will say that I support the use of Constitutional amendments to decide the issue. States that pass such amendments are following the process prescribed by their respective constitutions.
Honestly, I wish the anti-2nd amendment people would follow the same method. If they don't like the 2nd amendment they can try to get it changed through the amendment process. If an amendment passes by the will of the American people, so be it. If not, then the issue is settled. I sincerely doubt they would ever get such an amendment passed, so I am not worried about such a thing really happening. My point is that there is a process to change the Constitution if one disagrees with it, and that should be the method followed instead of trying to employ creative end-runs around the Constitution.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 17:08
Let me see if I understand here:
If a "robed tyrant" decides that a law is unconstitutional, like the DC gun ban, and strikes it down, it's OK. This is understood to be the job of the judicial branch of government.
If another "robed tyrant" decides that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, it's NOT OK.
How is one any different from the other?
Question: Were handguns banned in Washington DC in 1789?
Answer: No.
Question: Were gay people getting married in Washington DC in 1789?
Answer: No.
Apples. Oranges.
There's a difference between judicial review and legislation from the bench.
Say what? Who are some of the biggest promoters of censorship on the airwaves all in the name of 'family / christian values'? That's right, religious (specificaly Christian) groups. What about the 'temperance' movement. THose are two easy ones right there.If you are talking about preventing pornography filth infecting prime time TV, then I'm all for that kind of censorship.
Define pornography. Just cause something turns you off doesnt mean that every one should have to adhere to that standard. Lets take my Eldest as an example. She is a lovely child, highly intelligent, caring, kind, compassionate, devoted to God. However she feels that movies like 'Saving Private Ryan' should be banned because she doesnt like to see blood and violence and only movies like 'Sweet Home Alabama' and 'Legally Blonde' are socially acceptable. SHould she have the right to force her ideals on any one? Of course she shouldnt. Neither should other individuals or groups be allowed to do that. And the bonus is, if you dont wanna see it, use the stupid v-chip thats installed in your TV. Now that is freedom and following the spirit of this nation.
And how are they? Yes some of the things are uncomfortable to many (evolution for example) and yes there are elements of the left that would love nothing more than to stop out Christianity. But so what? This is an excuse to use the government as a counter punch?How do Christians use government that is run by Leftists (you know, the good folks that despise Christians) as a counterpunch? Kind of a non-sequitor if you ask me.
Wait a second, I thought the leftists just took over in November. What happened? Whats been going on for the past 20 years of legislation sought and some times passed?
...are quite happy to go to work, raise their kids, pay their taxes, go to Church, and enjoy their hobbies - but without the Christians trying to use the government to foist their own mind control (I.e. blue laws, there is another example).I've seen very few Blue Laws remaining anywhere. When was the last time in the last 20 years you have seen a Blue Law enacted?
and yet they still exist. Why else am I prevented from buying a drink anytime I want on a Sunday? Why am I forced to wait till a certain hour? Why do some places forbid its sale. Thats just one example.
And if you are for Christians using government to protect their beliefs and set up society around them, then what happens when / if another religious group eventually comes along and has more voters than Christians and they want their beliefs 'protected' and foisted on the public by the government?I'm not for that. I'm for government staying out of people's lives generally. But I am not holding my breath that a government full of Leftists/marxist types is planning on doing that. They have a record unlike any other save the Fascists for interjecting the "political commissars" and thought police...Funny but it seems you arent for government minding their own business (I.e. the censorship). And thus we have one example of what ails the Republican party. Folks want more freedom, not the freedom from some political party and what that they think that others should have.
...and yet, the reason why homosexuality has become a campaign issue is because militant homosexual groups have tried to use the courts as a means to force their view of life upon the rest of society whether the rest of society wants them to or not.
I don't recall hearing many Christian groups calling for prohibiting gays from owning property or sitting on juries or voting or any of the other civil rights we all enjoy. I do, however, see a belated and frankly weak response to a politically correct jihad being waged by people none of us on this board would want to have as our neighbor.
So why then restrict the civil rights of others? Marriage, though once, is no longer a sacred institution. If it was it wouldnt have the failure rate it does. Government has taken a once sacred institution and instead made it into a quasi corporation bestowing specific legal and financial privileges between two individuals that exist no where else. So why is it ok to extend that benefit to only certain people. Additionally why is it anyone's business who takes advantage of that government created set of benefits? What you interpret as a belated and weak response others see as a growing realization that it is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. What is it with the 'Freedom for me but not for thee' mindset. Oh and whats with this 'people none of us on this board would want to have as our neighbor' business? Damn I guess my sister, who is about to get her doctorate, who has conservative tendencies, who has kicked ass at cleaning up her neighborhood, who strongly supports the 2nd A, but just so happens to be gay is now just 'one of those people'?
We are in the midst of a culture war. The way I see it we can either stand united against that sort of nonsense or we can continue to shoot at people who are our natural allies while a bunch of San Fransisco liberals keep accumulating power. If a dude wants to do stuff with another dude in the privacy of his own bedroom, so be it...but it doesn't end there. If you want to see the logical end of that politically correct nonsense, find some pictures of what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair. I sincerely doubt anyone on this forum, Christian or not, wants to see THAT become the future of our society.
If you ever knew any normal gay people (I.e. not the flamers or queens) you would know that normal, everyday people who just happen to be gay resent the hell out of the freak shows and hate them for the asinine stereo types that the queens display through outlandish behavior. It is the same as some one like Bill Cosby detesting the likes of Snoop Dog.
This is another reason why the Republicans are hurting; The investiture into the business of other people.
Question: Were handguns banned in Washington DC in 1789?
Answer: No.
Question: Were gay people getting married in Washington DC in 1789?
Answer: No.
Apples. Oranges.
You're right. Instead if they had tried they most likely would have been murdered. Yeah, not a big deal at all.
Good response, and that's the whole issue in a nutshell.
How do you promote individual rights and freedom when a large percentage of the party faithful want to restrict people rights when it comes to victimless "moral" issues?
Good response, and that's the whole issue in a nutshell.
How do you promote individual rights and freedom when a large percentage of the party faithful want to restrict people rights when it comes to victimless "moral" issues?
And its that coupled with the run away spending among other issues that turned away so many voters. If the Republican party wants back in power, they have to shed the interventionalism of the far religious right and control spending. They have the strong military and commitment to national security down pat. So those parts they dont have to worry about. The Republicans could set themselves miles apart from the Democrats, and swing back a lot of centrists and moderates on both the left and the right if they got the spending under control and really did respect individual rights.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 20:10
So why then restrict the civil rights of others? Marriage, though once, is no longer a sacred institution. If it was it wouldnt have the failure rate it does.
A miserable understanding of marriage in society at large does not warrant throwing the concept out completely.
bestowing specific legal and financial privileges between two individuals that exist no where else.
Patently untrue. Power of attorney, mutual ownership of property, and various other legal and financial relationships can be arranged outside of a marriage. Marriage is a shorthand version of all of that, but there's nothing stopping the lesbian down my street from arranging her girlfriend as power of attorney, joint owner of their home and vehicles, etc...as they've done exactly that.
If you ever knew any normal gay people
I know plenty of "normal" gay people. I interact with plenty of "normal" gay people on a daily basis.
They are decent enough people....and they are not "oppressed" by society either.
You're right. Instead if they had tried they most likely would have been murdered. Yeah, not a big deal at all.
I don't recall the founders murdering people because they were gay or denying them any ACTUAL civil rights like speech, assembly, arms, worship, protection against search and seizure, etc. I also don't recall any of them pushing for the recognition of gay marriage. I'd refer to that as a "clue".
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 20:12
This is a very good discussion guys- truly a marvel on an internet forum.
bigshooter
12-13-08, 20:17
wow.
back on topic................
How does the Republican Party fix itself?
Implosion, nothing short of total collapse.
then we take the survivors, and form the new "Constitution" party.
I can't buy alcohol from a store on Sunday in the State of Indiana. There's a blue law for you.
And when was it enacted? And quite likely it would go down to defeat if it were ever voted on. And for good reason. And I suspect that most Christians would support that.
As far as "pornography filth" goes. Who is it that tries to ban art exhibits featuring erotic works? Most of those exhibits would go unnoticed by the general population if no for the negative publicity.
I don't know anyone that tries to ban it. I do know that a lot of people, Christian and otherwise find 'bathroom' art detestable and disgusting. Would they ban it if they could? Most likely. And wow, wouldn't that just be terrible?
Who is it that protests movies that they haven't seen because they know they would be offended by them?
Well, I suppose you know some other ones besides the one that the Leftists despised, howled about and protested?
The fact is that prime time network TV is dying out because FCC censorship prevents them from showing compelling and competitive broadcasting that can stand up to the cable channels. I'll take almost any HBO series - Sopranos, The Wire, 6 Feet Under, True Blood, Deadwood, etc. - over the boring and derivative crap on network TV. The fact that network TV cannot depict how real people talk and behave makes it fake.
Isn't it great you have that diversity available to YOU. And yet you would deny it of others that don't particulary care for the tripe offered by HBO and other cable movie channels by allowing the networks to stoop to the same lame level? Interesting.
I'm a parent too, and I decide what my child (5 years old) is allowed to watch. Most of that is simply by being at home when he is and supervising his behavior. My HDTV's and cable boxes allow a myriad of options to regulate what is accessible. As a precaution, I have placed a PIN code restriction on all pay-per-view items. I may block channels or content by TV rating level as he gets older, if I see a need.
I also have the computer he is allowed to use set up to allow him to visit only the internet sites I authorize. All unrestricted computers in the house have password protection.
Regulating what my child sees/hears is MY responsibility. I don't need the government telling me what I am allowed to see or hear.
Now that is most commendable. Sadly, for a lot of working single parents, those options aren't available to them. I am heartened that you as a parent have chosen to act and stand firm against the sewage normally propelled towards your kids by those that would like nothing better than to inundated them with filth.
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 20:39
wow.
back on topic................
From what I have seen there has been absolutely nothing off-topic.
We agree on FAR more than we disagree on, and that agreement should be a basis we can unite around. Often what I see is people more worried about Pat Robertson than Nancy Pelosi. That's like being worried about the kid vandalizing your mailbox while there's a homicidal maniac trying to force his way into your house.
I've said this on other boards and I'll say it here too: I'm one of them evil Christian conservatives everybody is always griping about. If someone on the right side of the spectrum is more worried about me than Barak Obama or Nancy Pelosi then they need to re-assess their thought process. Evangelical Christians like myself aren't trying to get legislation passed that forces people to be Baptists. Why resisting the transformation of our schools into politically correct indoctrination camps gets turned into the same thing as forcing everybody to be a Baptist is beyond me.
Beautifully put.
This is a very good discussion guys- truly a marvel on an internet forum.
Totally agree. That is quite a testament to everyone that has partaken in the discussion. Hat's off to you all. Makes me proud to be here!:)
bigshooter
12-13-08, 21:32
From what I have seen there has been absolutely nothing off-topic.
my mistake, I took this exchange out of context.
If you ever knew any normal gay people
I know plenty of "normal" gay people. I interact with plenty of "normal" gay people on a daily basis.
They are decent enough people....and they are not "oppressed" by society either.
I had missed a few pages and thought the thread had gone south.
El Mac,
Without resorting to a line-by-line response to your line-by-line response, you are proving my point. You see nothing wrong with restricting speech that you don't happen to approve of.
I was referring to events like christian conservatives' efforts to shut down exhibits by Robert Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati. The exhibitors faced criminal prosecution for obscenity. Then there are the christian protests of movies like "Dogma". They protested something they had never seen because they assumed it would be offensive to them. Interestingly, the movie showed excellent understanding of the intricacies of Catholic doctrine and how it contradicts itself.
Have you ever even watched any of the HBO shows I mentioned? In my opinion they are not tripe. Many are respected as some of the best written and acted shows on television. Hardly stooping to a low level.
HBO Family also offers excellent family programming at appropriate times. There is no shortage of child or family appropriate material while still having programs that only adults should watch.
It is the major networks that stoop to the lowest level with endless "reality" shows that insult the intelligence of America, quiz shows featuring guests seemingly chosen for their ignorance (Jeopardy is the exception), and banal sitcoms with overwrought canned laugh-tracks that are neither funny nor entertaining.
I stopped watching TV for the most part from 200-2003 when I was working on a master's degree while working full time (part of that time on 2nd shift). When I finished the degree and went back to working days, I turned the TV on and could simply could not watch network TV anymore - it had gotten that bad, just absolutely stupid.
You keep mentioning sewage and filth. What is it that you are offended by, sex or violence?
Dangit -- I had half a reply all typed out and then accidently nagivated away and lost it...but here's the gist of it...
JW777 makes some very good points and in particular the comment about the "culture war" in America and the need to unite over common ground. I think that points right back to the root of this discussion.
We are in a war on multiple fronts, and find ourselves playing defense on all of them. It's a constant struggle to hold our ground against the constant onslaught of the left-wing loonies. Such is the plight of being conservative, I suppose...but there is no victory in defense alone.
I think a big problem is that the various conservative factions have their pet issues (guilty as charged) and we're very vulnerable to divide-and-conquer. Then the Republican party tries to pick candidates to sort-of suit everyone, but ends up with someone that really pleases no one.
The subsets will have to reach some mutual agreement on goals, find a way to make up some up some ground and end some of the battles to concentrate efforts on the others. Imagine if some equillibrium could be reached on the gay rights issue (for example), making that a moot point and allowing all the time and energy to be spent elsewhere.
I do think that finding ourselves in the position of the minority will help us to circle the wagons a little. It seems that being in power allows some room to breathe that leads to fragmentation within the party as everyone tries to use the power for divergent purposes.
to answer the posted question : grow some balls and shitcan bufoons like mccain.
Not sure how you interpreted that out of the paragraph of mine that you quoted from.
I'm not sure of the actual numbers of Christian fundamentalists (whatever that is) versus Christian non-fundamentalist (whatever that is), but suffice it to say that without those voting blocks, the Retardicans will never again get elected to national prominence and even come close to resembling the conservative movement of the Reaganaunts of the 80s or the Gingrichites of the early 90s.
When the Retardicans turned their backs on the Christian base and their Conservative base, they were doomed to failure.
Your history seems to omit the dominant body of Republican Party history, which lies before 1980. Prior to the Reagan campaign strategy to "win the religious vote", meaning those who were more likely to vote along religious Christian lines than others (including other Christians) being specifically targeted during a campaign, that aspect of the voting base had not been tapped and for good reason. Cater too much for one end of the spectrum and you alienate the rest. The majority of voters aren't going to the polls with the Bible outlining how they'll vote, even though the majority of voters are Christian. In terms of politics, the "fundamentalists" are the ones who are especially likely to be voting exactly like that, and who find it acceptable to use the varying levels of government to enforce their viewpoints. One could certainly argue that such religious fundamentalist vote is baggage that's worth shedding, if we look back at the Democratic Party of the 1880s-1920s.
The paragraph that I quoted stated that "the Christian fundamentalists bought into the lie of the Retardicans", and did not qualify how much the Christian fundamentalist vote counted for, and as such how much clout they add to the Republican Party voter base. My point remains valid.
...and yet, the reason why homosexuality has become a campaign issue is because militant homosexual groups have tried to use the courts as a means to force their view of life upon the rest of society whether the rest of society wants them to or not.
I'm not sure demanding equality under the law is militant, nor forcing their view of life upon the rest of society, and society's preferences shouldn't mean a damn thing in a nation where no one is above the law and the law is supposed to be applied equally to all. While the religious fundamentalists aren't advocating infringing upon the existing freedoms of a group of people, they certainly aren't willing to permit them to same freedoms they themselves possess (like equal opportunities under the law, often tied up in the word "marriage").
In addition to this, what Washington said was that it's up to us as voters to put moral people into office to maintain freedom, not people who we agree with or who agree with us. There is a significant difference.
If a "robed tyrant" decides that a law is unconstitutional, like the DC gun ban, and strikes it down, it's OK. This is understood to be the job of the judicial branch of government.
Inapplicable, for two reasons. First, the court did nothing but agree with the lower court's decision, thereby binding all inferior courts to their ruling that they did not view the D.C. gun laws as constitutional when held directly to the Constitution (which the District falls directly under). Second, the laws changed not because the courts said so, but because the Congress stepped in and made the laws change. (People have a very curious set of notions of what the Courts actually can and can't do. ;))
-B
thopkins22
12-14-08, 00:32
BAC is on point...the "religious right," racists, and other people who don't disavow collectivism used to belong to the democrat party.
Even if you couldn't point to things like the push for a freaking constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the perception of the shallow minded creationist turns many people off. I know a lot of lifelong Republicans who have changed their registration to independent or Libertarian and have no intentions of coming back until the Sarah Palin/hypocritical/Fox News douches no longer have the clout in the party that they do now.
We preach against all things that would expand the government(and often fall in line with other peoples morals) but totally applaud it when the expansion follows ours. And what's worse when government fails in the new roles we gave it, the political right and freedom in general takes the hit simply because Republicans enacted it.
Party hubris is strong on both sides, the democrats simply have the edge because they haven't had the majority until recently and the presidency. I fear that in four(hopefully not eight) years of Obama, people will make the same stupid "I don't like him so I'm going to automatically vote for the other party" decisions.
Republicans MUST start winning the intellectual arguments instead of this hee haw intellectual lightweight crap we've seen. With the right politicians it won't be hard, freedom and reason tend to speak for themselves pretty well.
Our elected officials have lost sight of morals and integrity they no longer seem to be a requirement to govern, term limits need to be put in place to get rid of career politicians and stop the BS in state and federal courts. They should (ALL) get on their knees and repent from their wicked ways before we have to suffer any further from their corrupt, misguided, self indulgent ways which only lead this country further down the road to destruction! I feel a little better now,thanks. I do have a question for those of you that support gay marriage so readily, how many of you want your kids to grow up to live that sort of lifstyle?
Inapplicable, for two reasons. First, the court did nothing but agree with the lower court's decision, thereby binding all inferior courts to their ruling that they did not view the D.C. gun laws as constitutional when held directly to the Constitution (which the District falls directly under). Second, the laws changed not because the courts said so, but because the Congress stepped in and made the laws change. (People have a very curious set of notions of what the Courts actually can and can't do. ;))
Don't judges in lower courts wear robes too? I didn't assume that "black robed tyrants" meant only the SCOTUS, but that may be what he intended. The lower court did declare the law unconstitutional, correct?
My point is that many republicans' complaints about "legislation from the bench" are disingenuous. If they agree with the ruling it's OK, if they disagree with the ruling it's those darned activist judges.
Our elected officials have lost sight of morals and integrity they no longer seem to be a requirement to govern, term limits need to be put in place to get rid of career politicians and stop the BS in state and federal courts. They should (ALL) get on their knees and repent from their wicked ways before we have to suffer any further from their corrupt, misguided, self indulgent ways which only lead this country further down the road to destruction! I feel a little better now,thanks. I do have a question for those of you that support gay marriage so readily, how many of you want your kids to grow up to live that sort of lifstyle?
Three points:
1) I agree term limits would be the best short-term fix available to us as voters.
2) To think that the wicked and corrupt politicians should repent for their sins so we won't suffer is itself flawed. If they are wicked and corrupt, let them stand before the law as any man or woman would, and let us watch them knowing we put them into the position they abused. It's not our place to decide who should repent and who shouldn't; I was under the impression that the only redemption that mattered was a genuine one, not a coerced one. We as voters are not an innocent third party in all of this.
3) I have had the pleasure to know some truly amazing people in my life, as I'm sure most of us have, and no less than two of them were homosexual. They were also friendly, intelligent, trustworthy, and had a better sense of what the last six words of our Pledge of Allegiance mean than most other people I know. I don't have kids now, but I would hope that if I do one day they can find role models like these.
Don't judges in lower courts wear robes too? I didn't assume that "black robed tyrants" meant only the SCOTUS, but that may be what he intended. The lower court did declare the law unconstitutional, correct?
My point is that many republicans' complaints about "legislation from the bench" are disingenuous. If they agree with the ruling it's OK, if they disagree with the ruling it's those darned activist judges.
I may have read into that what wasn't there, then; happens sometimes (:o). Your point is valid, though, and I agree with it completely.
-B
thopkins22
12-14-08, 02:05
I do have a question for those of you that support gay marriage so readily, how many of you want your kids to grow up to live that sort of lifstyle?
First of all there's been a lot of research done on just this. It shows that in the vast majority of cases, homosexuals are homosexual because of chemical reaction(or lack thereof) in the mother during the stage of pregnancy that masculinizes(spelling?) or feminizes the fetus...also the reason that second sons etc...are more likely to be gay. I won't deny that it would be "easier" to have a child that was heterosexual, but I seriously doubt it would change my feelings towards my future offspring. It's not like gay people didn't exist in old times, most of them simply led repressed lives as bachelors or unhappily married. I'd much rather my child feel accepted.
If we're going to talk about what we truly find offensive(still shouldn't be banned), with few exceptions there is far more offensive, distasteful, and distracting heterosexual behavior around than homosexual.
There are tons of children that would be infinitely better off in a loving, stable, albeit eccentric gay home than with the crappy heterosexual parents they have.
thopkins22, I asked if you "want" your kids to live that lifestyle? If I asked if you wanted a dounut would you give a report, do you really think I haven't heard it all before?I don't condone anything that will lead my kids to sin- drugs,alcohol or anything else you can come up with. If you can't answer yes or no then just move along and we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings whatsoever.
BAC, repent- means to turn from or change ones mind and you don't need religion to do it and as far as saying I need to repent for decisions say like the gov. of IL. made well I find that more than flawed and mostly retarded, I can see it now the voters made me do it. Or say for instance I'm a serial killer and I repent and stop killing people you don't think that any further suffering would be avoided and you don't understand unrepentance leads to more killing? You think it's right that the people should suffer the consequences of the choices unrepentant leaders make you need to take a look around the world and more than likely pick up a history book. We are only as good as the leaders we have elected and yes leaders should lead and it should start at the top and if you don't think the issues I've pointed out are part of the problem that's fine we'll just disagree as that doesn't bother me. By the way how do you think we got in this economic mess and don't you think we'll be suffering the consequences of it for a long time or would you rather the unrepentant continue, get real man. I know and have spent time with gay people as well and yet I can say NO I don't want my kids to live that lifestyle so I don't condone it to them.It's the same thing I do with drugs and alcohol I don't condone anything that will lead them to sin. You too answer the question!Or not I really don't think any of this will really solve any issues in and it's to easy to get wrapped up in this sort of thing, so whatever!
BAC, repent- means to turn from or change ones mind and you don't need religion to do it and as far as saying I need to repent for decisions say like the gov. of IL. made well I find that more than flawed and mostly retarded, I can see it now the voters made me do it.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase?
Or say for instance I'm a serial killer and I repent and stop killing people you don't think that any further suffering would be avoided and you don't understand unrepentance leads to more killing? You think it's right that the people should suffer the consequences of the choices unrepentant leaders make you need to take a look around the world and more than likely pick up a history book.[/quote]
Your example is unrelated; we're not talking about a serial killer or anything similar to being a serial killer. A dirty politician isn't killing people; he's making lives harder, yes, sometimes oppressively so, but he's not killing them. Likewise, I never said it was right that people should suffer for the choices their leaders made. What I said was a leader repenting will not be what eases our suffering as voters. The law should be taking care of that, if the leader is repenting for something that would be a violation of the law. The voters should learn the lesson of the day (whatever it might be for the given situation), and take it into account the next time they step into the voting booth.
We are only as good as the leaders we have elected
Absolutely not. Our leaders are only as good as we who elect them. They are a reflection of us, the voters, not the other way around.
By the way how do you think we got in this economic mess
Easy. Politicians continuously screwed the pooch and nobody ever voted them out. They saw they could push without consequences, so they had no reason to stop pushing. Further, the government's continual dicking with the economy and market system is the dominant factor in why we're in this economic mess... nearly all of it a byproduct of people we can vote in or out of office. Like I said, we the voters are not an innocent third party. This crap won't get solved by a leader repenting. This is going to take us, as voters, "getting real" and putting people a lot more serious about the state of our nation (and of the States) into the many offices. We will have to solve this problem, not a hope and a prayer that demonstratively corrupt politicians will repent and try to correct their mistakes.
This is also exactly how the Republican Party will have to be fixed, which is by the voters and from the grass-roots level. Until then, it's just another lobbyist group.
You too answer the question!
I thought I answered it well enough by mentioning role models, but alright. By and large biological factors play a very strong role in determining a great many things in someone, homosexuality included. If I have child, my attitudes toward them will not be determined by their sexual orientation, which was the point I was getting at earlier.
-B
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 10:35
Don't judges in lower courts wear robes too? I didn't assume that "black robed tyrants" meant only the SCOTUS, but that may be what he intended. The lower court did declare the law unconstitutional, correct?
My point is that many republicans' complaints about "legislation from the bench" are disingenuous. If they agree with the ruling it's OK, if they disagree with the ruling it's those darned activist judges.
"Robed tyrants" refers to judges who can't bring themselves to acknowledge a 2nd amendment right that clearly exists while deeming the execution of a 17 year old (at the time of his crime) who HUNTED PEOPLE unbearable.
Some of the members of the current SCOTUS would qualify as a "robed tyrant"....as would lots of other members of the judiciary. Thankfully there are some who take their responsibility seriously.
As Clarence Thomas once said in my hearing:
"I can carefully study history and the writings of the founders to determine what they intended for our great nation....putting aside personal preferences and prejudices to try and render a decision that is consistent with the founding principles of our nation...or I can just make stuff up. Which would you have me do?"
As I said earlier, there is a DIFFERENCE between judicial review and legislation from the bench. For an understanding of the difference between the two, look at the Heller opinions. The majority opinion written by Scalia is an example of judicial review. The dissent of Stevens is a clear example of someone ignoring history and the intent of the founders because he just plain didn't like what the 2nd says....and if he had his way, the right to own firearms would be GONE. Look at the majority opinion in the eminent domain case, another clear example of the court overstepping its bounds.
The really "disingenuous" here is equating the court performing its proper function with a court overstepping its bounds and then to proclaim that "republicans" are just grumbling about rulings they don't like. That is nonsense.
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 10:52
I know a lot of lifelong Republicans who have changed their registration to independent or Libertarian and have no intentions of coming back until the Sarah Palin/hypocritical/Fox News douches no longer have the clout in the party that they do now.
I find it remarkable that "lifelong" Republicans find themselves completely alienated from the Republican party by a woman who was on a ticket in a VP slot for a couple of months....a VP slot underneath the most liberal presidential candidate that the party has probably EVER nominated.
I find it remarkable that "lifelong" Republicans would be deeply offended at the existence of a news network that at least TRIES (and usually fails, by the way) to do something other than repeat liberal talking points.
I find it remarkable how many "lifelong" Republicans spend almost all of their time bitching and moaning about other Republicans.
To be frank, I have to question just how "republican" these "lifelong republicans" you are citing actually are and just how deeply they are thinking about their political choices. Further, I doubt they are capable of unifying around common principles because they seem to be driven more by their distaste for certain segments of the Republican voter block than by actually accomplishing something.
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 11:09
I think a big problem is that the various conservative factions have their pet issues (guilty as charged) and we're very vulnerable to divide-and-conquer.
We are not just vulnerable, brother, we seem to be damn near genetically predisposed to start shooting at our allies at the earliest opportunity. I've observed what I believe are two core reasons for this:
1. Competition to be the "most" ideologically pure -- as if it's some sort of king of the hill game and the guy who is most "true" to conservative principles (which is generally defined as despising Republicans in office and voting for democrats to "teach a lesson" to the Republicans for being too liberal) gets some sort of prize.
2. Distaste for certain segments of the Republican voting block -- some seem to be driven more by their hatred for those evangelical conservatives than anything else. Even being on the same side of an issue makes them uncomfortable because of how lowly they regard the intellect and ideas of those people.
Unlike liberals the conservative side of the spectrum seems to have absolutely no patience and are least willing to subjugate their own personal interests and tastes long enough to actually accomplish something. Liberals manufacture unity through spreading hatred and loathing for the other side. No matter how "conservative" their guy turns out to be, they reason that he is still light years better than the "other guys" and they realize that power is a prerequisite for setting policy.
We don't seem to understand that....especially if people on "our" side are fleeing the party because of Sarah Palin and Fox News. :rolleyes:
Totally agree. That is quite a testament to everyone that has partaken in the discussion. Hat's off to you all. Makes me proud to be here!:)
Im enjoying it too, thanks for participating
I do have a question for those of you that support gay marriage so readily, how many of you want your kids to grow up to live that sort of lifstyle?
I guess it depends on how you look at homosexuality. Do you look at it as being a choice or do you look at it being a naturally occurring condition (caused by genetics, hormonal flows, etc..). I have seen enough studies, though not 100% conclusive, that seem to indicate that homosexuality is a not a choice. If that is the case how could I have any ill feelings towards my kids? That would be like me hating them or being disappointed because they were left handed. However if it was a choice I would have to look at it in the the light of what it means to their actions. Are they law abiding citizens? Are the gainfully employed? Do they help their fellow man of their own voilition? If yes then I couldnt see how it would be that big of a deal, other than the fact that I probably wouldnt get any grand children. So why should the Republican party look at it any differently? Why should they worry themselves with such a trivial issue?
To be frank, I have to question just how "republican" these "lifelong republicans" you are citing actually are and just how deeply they are thinking about their political choices. Further, I doubt they are capable of unifying around common principles because they seem to be driven more by their distaste for certain segments of the Republican voter block than by actually accomplishing something.
Its rather easy. These Republicans are based on the pre-Regan christian conservative ideals. These republicans are for all of the constitutional amendments and not just the 2nd A. These republicans are for conservative fiscal policies, not for spending just as much, if not more, than the democrats. These Republicans are for national defense. These Republicans are truly for less government and less government in our lives. These individuals are more in line with the core beliefs of the Republican party and realize that it has been hijacked by a mentality that says its all right to restrict the rights of others and spend money like drunken sailors.
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 11:14
Its rather easy. These Republicans are based on the pre-Regan christian conservative ideals.
If these "republicans" are making the yuk face at Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president we've had in at least 60 years, then that's what I would call a "clue".
Reagan was not a "christian conservative"....he was a conservative...and he won the support of lots of Christians. Also a "clue".
Don't you remember that Reagan broke the mold by making deficit spending acceptable?
While he was a social conservative and big on defense, he accelerated federal deficit spending more than any President before him, resulting in a near quadrupling of the national debt. Since Reagan, it has become acceptable for republicans to overspend. That is a fundamental violation of the basic principles of the party, but now that Reagan has been enshrined he did no wrong.
This change in spending policy was continued by Bush 1, and perfected by Bush 2 who never saw a spending bill he didn't like.
This is the fundamental problem, and it started with Reagan.
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 12:07
Don't you remember that Reagan broke the mold by making deficit spending acceptable?
Reagan put through spending cuts to go along with his tax cuts...but Congress has a say in how spending goes...a rather large one, in fact. Reagan didn't get everything his way. Reagan was also handed large deficits. The cuts Reagan got through were a source of constant media critique and complaint. Some may be too young to remember this or they didn't learn it in history class...but nevertheless it is true.
The real "spending" Reagan did was on a military buildup that was NECESSARY.
Since Reagan, it has become acceptable for republicans to overspend.
That statement completely ignores the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and what that congress DID...namely cut spending and social programs and achieve a balanced budget for the first time in a very, very long time....and all over the hearty objections of the Clinton administration.
Remember the government shutdown? Remember how the Republicans were roundly beaten by Clinton and his media allies?
...and yet people complain about the existence of Fox News? :rolleyes:
THAT was when the Republican party lost it. They delivered on the Contract With America but took a beating for it...a severe one. Exhibiting true "conservative" tendencies they started to eat their own and eventually ended up rolling over and playing the game just like the Democrats did.
This is the fundamental problem, and it started with Reagan.
That contention is laughable.
Defend Reagan all you want, he made deficit spending by republican Presidents acceptable. He asked for the big budgets, got them from Congress, and spent them. If he didn't want to spend the money Congress approved, he wouldn't have spent it.
You say the deficit spending on defense was necessary. But this is a circular argument based on the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Could the same result have been achieved with less deficit spending?
The republican Congress of the 90's restricted Clinton's spending for political reasons as much as for ideological reasons. The budget was balanced to a large degree on the increase in tax receipts due to the economic boom fueled by internet speculation and accounting fraud. Spending wasn't cut so much as increases were limited.
But what difference does any of this really make?
The fact is that 3 republican Presidents over 20 of the last 28 years, and 12 years of republican majority Congress have been complicit in the most massive increase in federal debt in the history of this nation. Make whatever excuses you want, place the blame wherever you want by the facts don't change. They allowed it to happen and now we are all paying the price, and will continue to pay the price for generations to come.
When the citizenry learns they can raid the treasury by popular vote, the Republic is lost. And we are there.
despising Republicans in office and voting for democrats to "teach a lesson" to the Republicans for being too liberal
These people make me want to swing a mace in crowded public areas. This goes right back to the "spite" mentality back from the beginning of the thread.
2. Distaste for certain segments of the Republican voting block -- some seem to be driven more by their hatred for those evangelical conservatives than anything else. Even being on the same side of an issue makes them uncomfortable because of how lowly they regard the intellect and ideas of those people.
:
I think this is an effect of being on the (badly) losing side of the propoganda war in the media. Segments (Christians and gun owners are two that come to mind) of the conservatives are so persistently painted in a negative light in the public eye by the media, that other conservatives feel a need to distance themselves. This turns us into fringe groups even though we make up a very large part of the conservative base. Sure, there are some genuinely looney fringe groups but they are small. If you could generalize to say "moderate" vs. "conservative" Republicans, the more moderate Republicans resent the large chunk of conservatives that draw negative attention, and the more conservative Republicans resent being marginalized even thouh they are a major part of the party.
Then we all eat our young from there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-08, 13:44
First of all there's been a lot of research done on just this. It shows that in the vast majority of cases, homosexuals are homosexual because of chemical reaction(or lack thereof) in the mother during the stage of pregnancy that masculinizes(spelling?) or feminizes the fetus...also the reason that second sons etc...are more likely to be gay.
I've always been very leary of the "I'm born that way?"
1. If it is a genetic "attribute" (I'll stay away from defect), can we fix it? Arrgh, that's ugly. What other things can we "fix". Mom's take an anti-gay pill when pregnant? You want to see gay people become the most pro-life people on the planet? Bring out an invetro test for "gay" and have everyone aborting their kids. It would seem an interesting conundrum for Christians, but not for the real ones.
2. What other genetics-based behavior will we enshrine with rights? If we find some people are born rapists, killers, nose-pickers, or compulsive shoppers do we give them a pass because they are "born that way"? A separate bankruptcy court? And before one of you j@ckasses tries to say that I'm implying that being gay is a felony, I am not doing that. What I'm saying is that basing laws on genetics predisposition is pretty silly.
"We hold these truths to be found on chromosone 13, neuclotide 12A4" was not uttered by Lincoln.
Be gay all you want. Just don't expect me to chime in on how great it is.
When did it go from the sin that dare not say its name, to the one that won't shut up.
Abortion should be a political issue, only in the sense that protecting human life is paramount to a moral society.
Anything that devalues human life cannot bode well for the long term success of our nation.
I am not against stem cell research, I am against harvesting them from the corpse's of unborn children.
What 2 people do behind closed door's is there buisness, when the government schools want to teach my children it is normal, then I am forced to do something.
I would just as soon pray for them and leave it at that, unfortunately, thats not the case.
Having read this entire thread I could write a book, but I will close by saying that what John_Wayne777 posted is exactly how I view things.
Whether you think you need, or want it, I pray for you all everyday.
Terry.
2. What other genetics-based behavior will we enshrine with rights? If we find some people are born rapists, killers, nose-pickers, or compulsive shoppers do we give them a pass because they are "born that way"? A separate bankruptcy court? And before one of you j@ckasses tries to say that I'm implying that being gay is a felony, I am not doing that. What I'm saying is that basing laws on genetics predisposition is pretty silly.
"We hold these truths to be found on chromosone 13, neuclotide 12A4" was not uttered by Lincoln.
Be gay all you want. Just don't expect me to chime in on how great it is.
When did it go from the sin that dare not say its name, to the one that won't shut up.
That is a strawman if there ever was one. So long as your beahvior is not illegal, who the heck cares if you are gay or straight?
I would say that if you can't answer a simple question about if you want your kids to grow up in a homosexual lifestyle with a "YES" but yet your for gay marriage then you have an as long as it's not my kids attitude and you might be somewhat of a hypocrite, despite all the pretty writing around in circles.
Jay Cunningham
12-14-08, 15:19
Let's not make this into a 100% conversation about homosexuality, please.
Bac- you seem to have this core beleif that if I vote for a person and they decide to do wrong in offfice that somehow I should repent of their choice in corruption and unethical behavior rather than them. It just doesn't happen to work that way anywhere in the universe and the concept is retarded. I know none of this "crap" will get solved by repenting yet that's what needs to happen despite what you think as it causes a change in behavior and is the beginning of a process not the end. You see until they admit they have gone astray they won't correct the behavior, it seems your under the impression that nobody can change until they are thrown in jail or out of office. If you don't understand my using a serial killer to try and show you how stopping bad behavior is good for all then you may be what is termed as clueless despite the obvious.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-08, 16:26
That is a strawman if there ever was one. So long as your beahvior is not illegal, who the heck cares if you are gay or straight?
I think you are trying to strawman me. Be gay, just don't tell me that my kids have to be taught in school that it is OK. I don't care if you are HES & HES or a HES & HERS. What I'm saying is that the genetic disposition basis for legislation is bad way to start making laws, that is unless they find a fat gene and I can get an extra seat on airplanes for free.
The end game for the radical left gay agenda is the marginalization of religion, if not the outright banning. The want to Klan the Church.
Hilter.
Just wanted to get it out of the way.
I would say that if you can't answer a simple question about if you want your kids to grow up in a homosexual lifestyle with a "YES" but yet your for gay marriage then you have an as long as it's not my kids attitude and you might be somewhat of a hypocrite, despite all the pretty writing around in circles.
Have you considered that the fault may be in the question?
Bac- you seem to have this core beleif that if I vote for a person and they decide to do wrong in offfice that somehow I should repent of their choice in corruption and unethical behavior rather than them.
I said no such thing. If someone has committed a sin, the only one they are repenting for is themselves, not for the sake of others. Repenting is personal. Whether they repent or not isn't really relevant, though. If a political official has committed a crime, regardless of the thoughts on that crime, they are to face the full force of the law. Period. Calling for political officials to repent is stupid. Judge them by their deeds and how their deeds compare to their words. If they've broken the law, call for prosecution. Let it be known that the person we voted for has become, or always been, a criminal, if such is the case. If people voted for them knowing there was a good chance they could become or already were a criminal, that's an issue of morals, not of laws (which are not the same thing). If the voter is repenting for anything, it's that they supported someone who they knew was or would likely become a criminal, and that's still for themselves and not for the elected official.
Left Sig is correct in that the greatest deficit spendings have occurred under Republicans, without exception. Back off from catering to a particular set of beliefs and start advocating real conservatism, starting by making it clear that deficit spending is not acceptable, and you'll see a Republican Party well on its way to becoming the conservative party its base wants it to be.
-B
thopkins22
12-14-08, 18:28
John McCain voted for more pork in ONE single bailout bill than he voted against in his entire career as a Senator. Is there more to say as to what's wrong with the Republican party?
cdvanns
How plain can I say it? I want grandchildren someday, so of course I "want" my kids to be straight. If however they aren't straight, I want them to be treated exactly the same under the law as I am. It's not hypocritical. I don't "want" my daughter to be a pornstar either, but she should have every right to be one.
You need to go back and read your own posts and no I'm not going to point out the contradictions for you or continue to point out the obvious to you other than to say repentance is good for everyone at any time, do you remember the one that cryed out in the wildernness and the price he paid for confronting politicians and the leaders of his time,what was it he called for.Have you never heard the story of King David.You ever heard of corporate prayer/repentance for a nation in any case like I said we'll just have to agree to disagree. And one for the road "the fault is in the question", please and I'm done.
thopkins, when you said you want your kids to be straight I take that as a NO, you said it all no further explanation will get you anyplace with me. Thanks I'm done- and go back and read the question if your confused,as if the question was confusing,Please!
thopkins22
12-14-08, 19:06
I find it remarkable that "lifelong" Republicans find themselves completely alienated from the Republican party by a woman who was on a ticket in a VP slot for a couple of months....a VP slot underneath the most liberal presidential candidate that the party has probably EVER nominated....To be frank, I have to question just how "republican" these "lifelong republicans" you are citing actually are and just how deeply they are thinking about their political choices. Further, I doubt they are capable of unifying around common principles because they seem to be driven more by their distaste for certain segments of the Republican voter block than by actually accomplishing something.
I don't know, I do know that the two people I'm thinking of voted Republican in every election from 1964 until 1996. "True republican" or not, they were votes on our side that no longer are.
What don't they like about Fox News? I don't know, Fox News used to be the big government watchdog in the Clinton years, and then once W was in, they abandoned principle in order to root for the home team...as did lots of Republicans.
thopkins22
12-14-08, 19:09
topkins, when you said you want your kids to be straight I take that as a NO, you said it all no further explanation will get you anyplace with me. Thanks I'm done
This makes sense.:rolleyes:
Abortion should be a political issue, only in the sense that protecting human life is paramount to a moral society.
Anything that devalues human life cannot bode well for the long term success of our nation.
I am not against stem cell research, I am against harvesting them from the corpse's of unborn children.
What 2 people do behind closed door's is there buisness, when the government schools want to teach my children it is normal, then I am forced to do something.
I would just as soon pray for them and leave it at that, unfortunately, thats not the case.
Having read this entire thread I could write a book, but I will close by saying that what John_Wayne777 posted is exactly how I view things.
Whether you think you need, or want it, I pray for you all everyday.
Terry.
Bravo Terry!
I would say that if you can't answer a simple question about if you want your kids to grow up in a homosexual lifestyle with a "YES" but yet your for gay marriage then you have an as long as it's not my kids attitude and you might be somewhat of a hypocrite, despite all the pretty writing around in circles.
So by not giving you the binary answer you were looking for then the answer is disingenuous? Sorry but it doesnt work out that way. But I'll take a stab anyways. Since there is a lot of supporting evidence that says that homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle' and that it is not a choice, then the question is non sequitor. How can I be happy or sad over my child for being who they are vis a vis genetics, etc..
As for Regan, the man did a lot of great stuff and I think he is one of the greatest presidents in history. However his spending was atrocious and the republican party needs to eject that method of thinking and get back to their core beliefs of economic conservatism.
I think you are trying to strawman me. Be gay, just don't tell me that my kids have to be taught in school that it is OK. I don't care if you are HES & HES or a HES & HERS. What I'm saying is that the genetic disposition basis for legislation is bad way to start making laws, that is unless they find a fat gene and I can get an extra seat on airplanes for free.
The end game for the radical left gay agenda is the marginalization of religion, if not the outright banning. The want to Klan the Church.
Hilter.
Just wanted to get it out of the way.
I wont dispute that many elements of the left (radical or not) and some righties want to marginalization of religion. Those folks are just as bad as those on the right who want to interject themselves into the personal lives of others. But for a party to take a position that being left handed is wrong and that those individuals should be discriminated against due to religious or cultural reasons, which fly in the face of the constitution and the promise of equal protection and the right of due process when dealing with the government, is inherently anit-American. This is where the Republicans are no different from the left and this is why many fence sitters went to the left this election. Oh and as to what kids should be taught in school...core educational classes (math, history, geography, english, science, and PE) and thats it. The schools should not be social experimentation zones. On the flip side they should not tolerate any disruption to that environment either. So if a special interest group wants program X instituted to help the children 'grow' into better people, the schools should be telling that group to piss off and do it on their own time. Like wise if the students are disruptive, they need to be punished or removed until such time as they are capable of sticking to the material at hand.
John McCain voted for more pork in ONE single bailout bill than he voted against in his entire career as a Senator. Is there more to say as to what's wrong with the Republican party?
Exactly. Pandering to the Leftists has been his trademark all along. And it caught up to him in the end. There are many RINOs just like him.
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 19:55
Exactly. Pandering to the Leftists has been his trademark all along. And it caught up to him in the end. There are many RINOs just like him.
I disagree. Obama was simply more attractive to more voters. It wasn't like conservatives decided "hey, I'm not voting for McCain because he pandered to leftists." At least not in any number to matter.
I disagree. Obama was simply more attractive to more voters. It wasn't like conservatives decided "hey, I'm not voting for McCain because he pandered to leftists." At least not in any number to matter.
Well, thats your right to disagree. But it doesn't change the fact that a vast number of R's simply disliked McCain for his "reaching across the aisle" on so many issues that most R's found distasteful...immigration being the biggest "no-go".
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 20:04
Any true conservative should have enough brains to realize that electing someone who's made a couple of concessions versus an avowed gun grabbing socialist is a no brainer. That is except for a few knuckleheads that helped us lose this election and elect a Democrat President and Congress. There's one or two on this very web site and I intend to publicly thank them for cutting off their noses to spite their faces the moment a new gun control law is passed.
HES, I suppose you decide how things work,please.Other than passing out big crayons and marking an X I don't now how to make that question any less confusing for anyone. Have you ever voted, theirs no explaination needed. Your talking in circles. Nobody asked if you love your kids or if your happy or sad or about any studies.BIG CIRCLES!!!
Its rather easy. These Republicans are based on the pre-Regan christian conservative ideals. These republicans are for all of the constitutional amendments and not just the 2nd A. These republicans are for conservative fiscal policies, not for spending just as much, if not more, than the democrats. These Republicans are for national defense. These Republicans are truly for less government and less government in our lives. These individuals are more in line with the core beliefs of the Republican party and realize that it has been hijacked by a mentality that says its all right to restrict the rights of others and spend money like drunken sailors.
This is more or less the same answer I gave my friend JW_777 during a discussion at dinner at the Hackathorn - Vickers LLII class.
We had a round table made up of Katar, myself, and JW. Katar and I pretty much agree on the above sentiment.
The Republican party was hijacked/made an unholy alliance (depending on your point of view) with the "Christian Right" with Reagan. I also agree that while not perfect, Reagan was one hell of a President.
I want to be left alone to live my life as I see fit.
I've seen a party turn into an anti scientific "Know Nothing" party.
JW_777 and I agree on more than we disagree, very true, but there's no way you can tell me that being joined at the hip with the Moral Majority/Pat Robertson has helped this country or the party.
If the Republican party keeps being associated with religious fundamentalists, we're going to lose every nation wide election from here on out.
Any true conservative should have enough brains to realize that electing someone who's made a couple of concessions versus an avowed gun grabbing socialist is a no brainer. .
True to the extent that McCain was the only choice we had. And that is sad. But it is what it is... I think the concessions he made were of enormous impact - immigration, standing on the platform with the likes of Ready Teddy and his ilk voting to allow 26 million illegals amnesty; campaign finance reform, which ended up biting him in the ass; electing to side with the clowns voting for "closing the gun show loophole"...
He naturally followed his liberal instincts on the 300 billion dollar bailout as well - hardly conservative.
But I digress.
That is except for a few knuckleheads that helped us lose this election and elect a Democrat President and Congress. There's one or two on this very web site and I intend to publicly thank them for cutting off their noses to spite their faces the moment a new gun control law is passed.
By all means, thank them for me as well.
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 21:12
He was still a better candidate than what we have in office. You'll have your chance to thank those geniuses when the first gun control law passes. I will be thanking them publicly and by name.
He was still a better candidate than what we have in office.
He may be the better candidate, but we will never know if he would have been a better president, can only speculate.
As for the closet Obamites.... nevermind, I won't go there.
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 21:22
His energy, Iraq, and gun control policies alone make him the better President in my book. Not to mention his leadership experience.
Its real simple...Run a Conservative candidate, not a centrist, not a moderate, a freakin' true 'Conservative'
Its real simple...Run a Conservative candidate, not a centrist, not a moderate, a freakin' true 'Conservative'
And that is the truth.
Any true conservative should have enough brains to realize that electing someone who's made a couple of concessions versus an avowed gun grabbing socialist is a no brainer. That is except for a few knuckleheads that helped us lose this election and elect a Democrat President and Congress. There's one or two on this very web site and I intend to publicly thank them for cutting off their noses to spite their faces the moment a new gun control law is passed.
You do realize, that had those people voted for Mcain exactly NOTHING would have changed right?
Obama won by an Average of 3% Those types in most states only accounted for less than 1% of the vote
The idiots we should find are the 37% of gun owners who voted for Obama, not the .9% who voted third party
Littlelebowski
12-14-08, 21:33
I'll blame them all, no worries :D Still an idiotic stand.
I'll blame them all, no worries :D Still an idiotic stand.
IDK, after Mcains horrible show as Candidate, if they(The GOP) cant or wont run a conservative, which Mcain is NOT, I may be voting w/ them next time!
Good article right here on the topic of this thread:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16425.html
The term 'conservative' used to be a smear word used by the left on the small government, individualist Old Right. It wasn't until Russell Kirk that the right wing began to embrace the once hated term. It's funny how throughout history we change the meaning of words, such as labeling 'socialists' as 'liberals' when they represent nothing that the word stands for.
Jay Cunningham
12-17-08, 00:44
Good article right here on the topic of this thread:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16425.html
I read both the article and the 10 reform points and not once was religion mentioned.
Correct. Religion has nothing to do with it, but God does (there is a difference).
From the article:
In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal continues to build on an already impressive reform record with a sweeping proposal to revitalize his state's health care system. Jindal's plan expands access to high quality, affordable care with a commitment to efficiency, transparency and accountability.
What makes Gov. Jindal an ideal messenger for our party is that is has walked the walk, successfully battling for much-needed ethics reform and commanding his state's response to Hurricane Gustav. As the son of immigrants, I connect with him because we share a passionate belief that the American Dream is still alive, that God has a place in our society and that our best days are yet to come. That's a message to inspire more Americans to join our Party.
Jay Cunningham
12-17-08, 02:34
Correct. Religion has nothing to do with it, but God does (there is a difference).
From the article:
Ah, missed it. Couldn't help themselves, I suppose. Republicans will keep losing.
Yes, if only we would stop bitterly clinging to guns and our religion, the world would be a more perfect and better place to live and worship the Golden Calf of DC.
For me, neither is an option.
No one is saying reject God.
What we're saying is that keep religion out of politics.
The question is then, how do you define "religion"?
Clearly, the Founders didn't and couldn't keep religion out of what serves as the very basic foundation of our country.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 09:01
Have you ever looked at the writings of the Founders regarding religion and the gov't? It's pretty darned clear they believed in separation of church and state.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Have you ever looked at the writings of the Founders regarding religion and the gov't? It's pretty darned clear they believed in separation of church and state.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Well, exactly so. Its not government's place to establish religion or PROHIBIT the free excercise thereof. Quite.
Notice it does not say that it is the government's job to disregard people's religion or forcefeed them pablum that serves as a false religion.
To ignore the writings along with the context of those writings, its easy to manuever to the fall back position of the Left's rantings of "seperation of Church and State, seperation of Church and State!!!!" God is only good when he is convenient for them. But when He gets in the way of "what feels good" then all bets are off.
decodeddiesel
12-17-08, 09:17
The term 'conservative' used to be a smear word used by the left on the small government, individualist Old Right. It wasn't until Russell Kirk that the right wing began to embrace the once hated term. It's funny how throughout history we change the meaning of words, such as labeling 'socialists' as 'liberals' when they represent nothing that the word stands for.
Thank FDR for that one...
decodeddiesel
12-17-08, 09:22
Have you ever looked at the writings of the Founders regarding religion and the gov't? It's pretty darned clear they believed in separation of church and state.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Jefferson has to be my favorite founding for-father. Writing such as this are so eloquent and effective at conveying his beliefs. Thanks for posting that Dude.
thopkins22
12-17-08, 09:29
Jefferson has to be my favorite founding for-father. Writing such as this are so eloquent and effective at conveying his beliefs. Thanks for posting that Dude.
Jefferson was a freedom loving patriot for sure...and the only one on Rushmore that actually belongs there.
Heck, when I'm feeling spiritual I go to the Jefferson Bible.
John_Wayne777
12-17-08, 09:52
Yes, if only we would stop bitterly clinging to guns and our religion, the world would be a more perfect and better place to live and worship the Golden Calf of DC.
For me, neither is an option.
Not what people are saying....well, at least not the people here. Some are, but they are too stupid to bother with at the moment.
Faith has a proper (and necessary, as the Founders themselves pointed out) role in society.
Some, however, take it to excess. Good example: When Fred Thompson was dipping his big toe in the candidate pool, Jimmy Dobson went to the press and started questioning Fred's faith...concerned that he wasn't a good Christian.
Dobson was on crack. I said so very loudly back when that happened, even going so far as to write Mr. Dobson and explain to him that a candidates opinion on the Constitution is VASTLY more important than their proclaimed relationship to Jesus, and that ultimately a candidate who believes what the Constitution says will be the best friend Christians could ever have...even if they happen to be an avowed atheist. (Thompson was not, by the way...)
Some of the Founders who helped craft our system of government were not men of strong religious belief. Jefferson, for instance, wasn't really what I would consider a Christian. Yet he had respect for the role of faith in society and helped ensure that the right to religious freedom was enshrined as a bedrock of American society.
Personally I couldn't care less who a candidate prays to, or if they pray at all. It makes no difference to me. What I care about is how they will govern. I'm concerned about the kind of judges they will appoint...about the legislation they will push for....the economic policy they will enact...the way they will use executive regulatory power. That's what my main concerns are. It doesn't matter to me whether they are a "good Christian" or they've never darkened the door of a church.
This is the major sticking point I can't seem to get many people past because they are too suspicious of the "other guy" to look past it and see that the left has been playing us all for suckers for YEARS.
An avowed atheist can be a better friend to Christians in this country than somebody who regularly attends church. (Like, oh, I don't know...a certain large church in Chicago, for instance...)
Similarly, a Bible-believing Baptist who hollers "Amen!" louder than anyone else in the congregation can be the best friend that non-religious conservatives have ever had.
The key is HOW THEY WILL GOVERN. If they are an actual conservative then they understand the proper role of faith in society just as the founders did. The founders constructed a legal system which enshrined the rights of conscience making it impossible to force someone to become a baptist...but at the same time they held the personal virtues taught by Christianity as being beneficial for the individual and for society, understanding that only people who held themselves personally accountable to a high standard of personal morality and ethics can hope to remain free.
Ultimately we can all agree that the Bible has some pretty good ideas in it, regardless of our opinion of whether or not it is a work of Divine Inspiration. I think ideas like:
"7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread."
2nd Thessalonians 3
and
"3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God....8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
1st Timothy 5
"6 Go to the ant, you sluggard!
Consider her ways and be wise,
7 Which, having no captain,
Overseer or ruler,
8 Provides her supplies in the summer,
And gathers her food in the harvest.
9 How long will you slumber, O sluggard?
When will you rise from your sleep?
10 A little sleep, a little slumber,
A little folding of the hands to sleep—
11 So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler,
And your need like an armed man.
16 These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren."
Proverbs 6
...and countless others I could cite would find wide acceptance among us all. Further, I think we could all agree that if everyone in our society lived by these principles we'd be a lot better off.
The great tragedy of our time is that the other side has been so successful in spreading doubt and discord that now people who agree on 90+% of issues look at each other with suspicion, each worried that the other is going to take away something precious....
Meanwhile the REAL enemy is robbing us blind.
The bottom line is that someone who understands our nation's history and who believes that the Constitution means what it says will be the best friend conservatives and Republicans of ALL stripes will EVER HAVE....be they an atheist, agnostic, Baptist, Hindu, black, white, hispanic, or purple with yellow feathers.
The role of political power is not to save everyone's soul. Neither is it to stamp out faith and replace it with humanist ideas. (They tried that during the French Revolution...it didn't go so well) None of us disputes those points....so why do we continue to have these debates?
When it comes right down to it though we may approach it from different angles we are all heading in the same ultimate direction, and that's toward a more balanced understanding of government's role in society...a concept we all agree that the founders had a better grasp on than modern society seems to display. Personal responsibility, freedom from government meddling too much in our business, respect for the rights of others, the ability to own property and accumulate wealth through hard work and perseverance, the right to protect what is ours....
Ya. I think we can all agree on that. Let's have a little faith in each other for a change and spend our time worrying about the people who want to take our property, our money, our free speech, and our guns.
John_Wayne777
12-17-08, 09:54
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
...and it should be noted that Jefferson's letter is in response to one from the Danbury Baptists who were worried about the establishment of a national religion.
Turns out those fundamentalist Christians didn't want a state religion any more than Jefferson did.
That's what I call a "clue".
Quoted from John_Wayne777:
Some of the Founders who helped craft our system of government were not men of strong religious belief.
This is true. It is also equally true that many were.
Jefferson, for instance, wasn't really what I would consider a Christian. Yet he had respect for the role of faith in society and helped ensure that the right to religious freedom was enshrined as a bedrock of American society.
Exactly so! A inconvenient truth for many.
The role of political power is not to save everyone's soul. Neither is it to stamp out faith and replace it with humanist ideas. (They tried that during the French Revolution...it didn't go so well) None of us disputes those points....so why do we continue to have these debates?
Extremely cogent remarks. I totally agree. Others that have tried to stamp it out in recent history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Polpot - fine lot of dudes there.
You and I are on the same page JW.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 10:26
How I weary of the nonsensical statements about atheism being the reason why dictators kill people. El Mac, do a bit of research on Hitler and Christianity.
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
John_Wayne777
12-17-08, 10:28
How I weary of the nonsensical statements about atheism being the reason why dictators kill people. El Mac, do a bit of research on Hitler and Christianity.
From a theological standpoint it would be hard to call Hitler a Christian because of that whole mass murder thing....
Hitler was more of a statist than anything else. His Nazi regime's persecutions extended to churches and clergy who didn't tow the party line.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 10:32
From a theological standpoint, that's a copout. What about the millions that have been killed over disputes in how christianity was interpreted? I'm not actually saying christianity teaches killing anymore so than being an atheist makes one a mass killer. I'm just countering a nonsensical argument.
John_Wayne777
12-17-08, 10:49
From a theological standpoint, that's a copout.
Not really. Christian principles do exist even though lots of people ignore them. The term "Christian" is not like a racial identity. It is a system of beliefs and values that one must adhere to in order to be accurately described as a "Christian".
What about the millions that have been killed over disputes in how christianity was interpreted?
I believe if you'll look back at those disputes you'll find lots of other factors involved such as money and power. It wasn't wars just over doctrinal differences. Unfortunately it seems to take little more than money, power, and a little bit of cultural hatred to get people killing each other.
Religion can play into that milieux, but generally as a contributing factor rather than the raison d'etre.
I'm not actually saying christianity teaches killing anymore so than being an atheist makes one a mass killer. I'm just countering a nonsensical argument.
I didn't believe you were trying to make such an argument. ;)
Calling Hitler a Christian based on something he said in 1928 is more than a little disingenous. By May of 1945, everyone knew he was anything but. An occultist, an Odonist, an "Aryanist", an insane megolomaniac - yes.
Thats about like calling Popeye a real sailor. Or perhaps a mall ninja that ever uttered "roger that" a CAG operator. Please.
And now, were you going to drag up a quote from Stalin, Mao or Polpot?
Sorry for getting a bit off topic.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 11:46
my point is there is precisely nothing about atheism that calls for mass killing or killing of any sort. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence thereof. Just because one avowed or purported atheist killed people does not typify all atheist; one might as well classify all Christians as killers by creed because of a few catholic dictators.
Downsize to smaller gov, upholding the Constitution, and advocate free market solutions to economic problems whenever possible (95% of the time). :)
Have you ever looked at the writings of the Founders regarding religion and the gov't? It's pretty darned clear they believed in separation of church and state.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
No doubt. There are many similar quotes documented. But…
I think it’s important to consider the context of these statements. Within the framework of the time, the establishment of religion by gov’t was an enforcement of a particular denomination of Christianity, be it the Catholic church, Church of England, whatever. This quote, for example, is addressed to the Danbury Baptists, and is reassuring them that they’ll be free to worship as they see fit. (Keep in mind at this time and throughout their history the Baptists were one of the most looked down up Christian groups – these people were afraid of any official establishment coming in to persecute them.) The wall of separation between church and state was there to keep the state from mandating or controlling individual church practices. The wall was built to see that individuals could choose to practice as Baptists, Puritans, Catholics, or whatever they saw fit, without interference from government or without any one group usurping the power via gov’t to persecute the others.
I don’t believe, however, that Jefferson or the other founders would have given much of any credibility to the notion that gov’t and religion were so far separated as to see any mention of God stricken from the official record. While not the law of the land like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence set a tone and justification for the foundation of the country. Right from the beginning, Jefferson writes in the Declaration that principles underlying this nation are rooted in rights endowed by the Creator. I can scarely think of a higher endorsement than to stake everything on these principles and to form a whole new nation (and system of gov’t) that firmly rests upon the notion that we are free men because God made us as such, rather than only having the freedoms granted some earthly power.
This is the reality of our history. We can’t change it (though we might forget or ignore it). Non-religious/Non-Christian folks and Christians alike need to remember that this framework is what allows both groups to choose to worship (or not) as they see fit as individuals. Within the public realm, everyone needs to be judged by their actions in the world, not their attendance on Sundays. I’m sure we can all think of people that are good and bad from all religions, races, careers, etc. Being a douchebag transcends the groups one chooses to identify oneself with ;)
In keeping with the original topic….
This thread has demonstrated just how deep the schism is between religious and non-religious segments of the conservative movement and Republican party…
As a hardcore right-winger on most all issues, I have to offer that the solution is moderation. Everybody seems to want the freedom to do their own thing, AND to be free from things they don’t like. Unfortunately that isn’t exactly how it works. In the process of securing our own liberty, we have to secure the liberty of others. It sounds like a koom-by-yah, hold-hands-and-sing-along cliché but it’s the truth. We rage against the Left’s barrage of ramming their twisted version of morality down our throats….we just need to be able to recognize when we’re doing something similar (even if we are, technically, correct and they are flat wrong ;)) Let's fight them instead of each other.
added: As always, I type these thing so slow that the conversation has passed me by...
my point is there is precisely nothing about atheism that calls for mass killing or killing of any sort. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence thereof. Just because one avowed or purported atheist killed people does not typify all atheist; one might as well classify all Christians as killers by creed because of a few catholic dictators.
I never said that one avowed atheist is a mass killer means that all atheists are mass killers.
But I will add that atheism is itself a form of religion... The hardcore atheist works so hard to convince himself or others that there is no higher power that it de facto becomes a religion unto itself.
Weird ain't it? ;)
But I will add that atheism is itself a form of religion... The hardcore atheist works so hard to convince himself or others that there is no higher power that it de facto becomes a religion unto itself.
Weird ain't it? ;)
My understanding of atheism is that it's simply a belief that God doesn't exist, not that religion doesn't exist. No paradox, really. Just a religion believing in something different.
-B
No doubt. There are many similar quotes documented. But…
I think it’s important to consider the context of these statements. Within the framework of the time, the establishment of religion by gov’t was an enforcement of a particular denomination of Christianity, be it the Catholic church, Church of England, whatever. This quote, for example, is addressed to the Danbury Baptists, and is reassuring them that they’ll be free to worship as they see fit. (Keep in mind at this time and throughout their history the Baptists were one of the most looked down up Christian groups – these people were afraid of any official establishment coming in to persecute them.) The wall of separation between church and state was there to keep the state from mandating or controlling individual church practices. The wall was built to see that individuals could choose to practice as Baptists, Puritans, Catholics, or whatever they saw fit, without interference from government or without any one group usurping the power via gov’t to persecute the others.
I don’t believe, however, that Jefferson or the other founders would have given much of any credibility to the notion that gov’t and religion were so far separated as to see any mention of God stricken from the official record. While not the law of the land like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence set a tone and justification for the foundation of the country. Right from the beginning, Jefferson writes in the Declaration that principles underlying this nation are rooted in rights endowed by the Creator. I can scarely think of a higher endorsement than to stake everything on these principles and to form a whole new nation (and system of gov’t) that firmly rests upon the notion that we are free men because God made us as such, rather than only having the freedoms granted some earthly power.
This is the reality of our history. We can’t change it (though we might forget or ignore it). Non-religious/Non-Christian folks and Christians alike need to remember that this framework is what allows both groups to choose to worship (or not) as they see fit as individuals. Within the public realm, everyone needs to be judged by their actions in the world, not their attendance on Sundays. I’m sure we can all think of people that are good and bad from all religions, races, careers, etc. Being a douchebag transcends the groups one chooses to identify oneself with ;)
In keeping with the original topic….
This thread has demonstrated just how deep the schism is between religious and non-religious segments of the conservative movement and Republican party…
As a hardcore right-winger on most all issues, I have to offer that the solution is moderation. Everybody seems to want the freedom to do their own thing, AND to be free from things they don’t like. Unfortunately that isn’t exactly how it works. In the process of securing our own liberty, we have to secure the liberty of others. It sounds like a koom-by-yah, hold-hands-and-sing-along cliché but it’s the truth. We rage against the Left’s barrage of ramming their twisted version of morality down our throats….we just need to be able to recognize when we’re doing something similar (even if we are, technically, correct and they are flat wrong ;)) Let's fight them instead of each other.
Very well said. Reminds me a lot of that phrase, "I might not like what you say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it." Same principle.
Good stuff.
-B
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this:
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.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
I think it's pretty clear from this and many other quotes that he was not a christian. He was suspect of all religions, and a critic of how religious leaders attempt to deny scientific advancement because it challenges their dogma.
However, as a man of the 18th century, he was content in assuming that some creative force put the universe and earth in motion, and maintained the order of the universe with respect to physical laws. If there is existence, there must be creation, thus there must be a creator of some sort. But he did not believe this was necessarily the christian or hebrew god.
Here is something else he wrote:
For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.
So he also clearly believed that the tradition of law in English history and subsequent American history is NOT based on christian notions of morality, rather it pre-dates christianity. The implication is that a system of laws intended to protect the rights of free men can be established without need of christian moral teachings.
My overall point is that the notion that the United States is a christian nation founded on christian principles is in itself a lie perpetuated by the religious right to further their agenda. We were founded on deist principles of natural law, which came to prominence during the enlightenment, and an extension of English common law, which was developed over hundreds of years in order to fairly settle grievances between Englishmen.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 13:16
My understanding of atheism is that it's simply a belief that God doesn't exist, not that religion doesn't exist. No paradox, really. Just a religion believing in something different.
-B
Speaking frankly and without rancor as an atheist, bullshit. Atheists simply don't believe in the supernatural. If you want to watch people argue, get some atheists together. It's like herding cats. IT IS NOT A RELIGION.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 13:17
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this:
I think it's pretty clear from this and many other quotes that he was not a christian. He was suspect of all religions, and a critic of how religious leaders attempt to deny scientific advancement because it challenges their dogma.
However, as a man of the 18th century, he was content in assuming that some creative force put the universe and earth in motion, and maintained the order of the universe with respect to physical laws. If there is existence, there must be creation, thus there must be a creator of some sort. But he did not believe this was necessarily the christian or hebrew god.
Here is something else he wrote:
So he also clearly believed that the tradition of law in English history and subsequent American history is NOT based on christian notions of morality, rather it pre-dates christianity. The implication is that a system of laws intended to protect the rights of free men can be established without need of christian moral teachings.
My overall point is that the notion that the United States is a christian nation founded on christian principles is in itself a lie perpetuated by the religious right to further their agenda. We were founded on deist principles of natural law, which came to prominence during the enlightenment, and an extension of English common law, which was developed over hundreds of years in order to fairly settle grievances between Englishmen.
I look forward to the christians arguing this one. Good stuff, LS. You learn something new everyday.
Littlelebowski
12-17-08, 13:29
I believe if you'll look back at those disputes you'll find lots of other factors involved such as money and power. It wasn't wars just over doctrinal differences. Unfortunately it seems to take little more than money, power, and a little bit of cultural hatred to get people killing each other.
Gee, one could the same about Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, eh?
Speaking frankly and without rancor as an atheist, bullshit. Atheists simply don't believe in the supernatural. If you want to watch people argue, get some atheists together. It's like herding cats. IT IS NOT A RELIGION.
WELL. Then I stand corrected. :D
-B
John_Wayne777
12-17-08, 14:04
Gee, one could the same about Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, eh?
Absolutely.
Gee, one could the same about Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, eh?
True! Imagine, wars fought for non-Christian reasons. Hmmm.....
Atheists simply don't believe in the supernatural.
Which is itself a belief system guided by a primary principle, i.e. - a RELIGION.
John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S.:
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]
“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
I could go on, but I think thats enough to get the point across.
I could go on, but I think thats enough to get the point across.
Yup, we won't win any more major national elections.
Yup, we won't win any more major national elections.
If it means throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or building a house on a foundation of straw, then perhaps we (as a nation) deserve then the dreck we get foisted on us by national elections.
I'm not sure who it was that said it but it went something like this: "A nation gets the exact leadership it deserves."
Jay Cunningham
12-17-08, 15:54
As long as Republicans continue to befuddle themselves into thinking that that it's the Democrats who are irrational and emotional - and then go onto be the Party of Anti-Science (we don't want to play God) and the Party of So-Called Morality (censorship based upon Biblical interpretation) then they will continue to lose just as Templar mentioned.
Modern Christianity is pacifist and collectivist in nature, sorry to say, and not very appealing to this guy.
El Mac, I hate to single you out but you are ironically acting out BHO's statement in regards to "bitter clingers" - go back and read your posts. You are thrashing about and ultimately you do indeed say well, even if we lose I'm clinging to my religion with my politics.
Downsize to smaller gov, upholding the Constitution, and advocate free market solutions to economic problems whenever possible (95% of the time).
Pretty much what this guy said - leave the other stuff out, thank you.
As long as Republicans continue to befuddle themselves into thinking that that it's the Democrats who are irrational and emotional - and then go onto be the Party of Anti-Science (we don't want to play God) and the Party of So-Called Morality (censorship based upon Biblical interpretation) then they will continue to lose just as Templar mentioned.
Modern Christianity is pacifist and collectivist in nature, sorry to say, and not very appealing to this guy.
El Mac, I hate to single you out but you are ironically acting out BHO's statement in regards to "bitter clingers" - go back and read your posts. You are thrashing about and ultimately you do indeed say well, even if we lose I'm clinging to my religion with my politics.
Pretty much what this guy said - leave the other stuff out, thank you.
Yes, I admit I "bitterly" (his words, not mine) cling to my beliefs regarding God/Christianity/religion and the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Second Amendment. I'm proud of that and don't really care whether BHO likes it or not or wants to ridicule it or not. I neither ask his permission or his approval. Instead of 'bitter' I would use the word "happily"...
I don't force my opinion of anyone else. But I won't have it where I have to cowtow to someone's attempt to do so to me or mine.
Passivist? Collectivist? Nah...that would be the Leftists or Socialists depending on whichever term you prefer.
As a hardcore right-winger on most all issues, I have to offer that the solution is moderation. Everybody seems to want the freedom to do their own thing, AND to be free from things they don’t like. Unfortunately that isn’t exactly how it works. In the process of securing our own liberty, we have to secure the liberty of others. It sounds like a koom-by-yah, hold-hands-and-sing-along cliché but it’s the truth. We rage against the Left’s barrage of ramming their twisted version of morality down our throats….we just need to be able to recognize when we’re doing something similar (even if we are, technically, correct and they are flat wrong ;)) Let's fight them instead of each other.
well said
good points as well LS and The katar.
I don't force my opinion of anyone else.yet you advocate for censorship and the restriction of civil liberties for others. Its that attitude that does and will doom the republican party.
Id say more but im recovering from surgery. sorry for the typos\.
...yet you advocate for censorship and the restriction of civil liberties for others. Its that attitude that does and will doom the republican party.
Id say more but im recovering from surgery. sorry for the typos\.
I do not advocate for censorship. Nor do I advocate for the restriction of civil liberties of anyone save the usual run of the mill terrorists, murders, etc...
Hope you get well soon!
browningboy84
12-25-08, 02:59
1) Although some were religious, the founding fore-fathers took great steps to separate church and state when drafting the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what I am talking about when I am discussing secularity, or the separation of church and state. I'm sure you know of the concept but others may not. I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread.
2)Two things:
A departure from the Keynesian style economics which this country has adopted on a unified bi-partisan front (bail outs, sub-prime interest rate tampering, etc.), and a return to a laissez faire style free market economy which is driven by supply and demand and not the federal government.
A reaffirmation of the ideas and concepts initially presented in the Declaration of Independence (government with the consent of the governed; state of nature; rights of life, liberty and property) and further emphasized in the Bill of Rights.
The myth of separation of Church and State has been so warped by the liberal media and the ultra-left wingers that the majority of the people are fooled by it. Go back and read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. You will not find one mention of "Separation of Church and State". In fact, they mention God in it. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and he was the spokesperson of the liberals back then.
Go back and read your history, and research it carefully. The United States of America had its first settlement in 1609 in Jamestown, Virginia. It initially failed miserably, and most of the guys were treasure and fortune seekers. Many of them died due to the fact that they were not willing to work together. You all know the story of Pocahontas, and the events during that time. If you dont, shame on you.
Time warp with me to 1620. A group of RELIGIOUS SEPARATISTS ("crazy right wing folks who were non-comformists with the state's religion") fleed England and came to America. Why did they put up with the hardships that they faced to come to America? For freedom of speech and to worship. They fared better than their fellow countrymen in Jamestown because religion was the binding force that kept them together.
Now we go forward to the Revolutionary War. Most of you should know your history, because history has a way of repeating itself. They gave freedoms and rights to the individual citizen in order to prevent the government from restricting their rights that they were fighting for. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence risked his life by signing that document, and some were killed by the English, and quite a few were left penniless after the war.
After the War was over, and while the Constitution was waiting to be ratified, which took 12 years, from 1777 to 1789, Thomas Jefferson was a key writer of the Federalist Papers. These preached support of the ratification of the Constitution. An editor of a paper wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter because he was worried there was going to be a state religion. Thomas Jefferson replied in a letter and told him that there was separation of church and state. The context of the letter was that there would be no state sponsored religion. Many people were churchgoers and "religious" in that time. The liberals took that letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and ran with it. Many people have been deceived by what has happenned. I am not trying to step on anyones toes, and I know that many of you are older and wiser than I am. I am just a simple ole country boy, and I work as a Paramedic, and am not some city slicker lawyer, but I do know my history. Edmund Burke said " All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
We are allowing the liberals and the Dems to make progress. Many evangelical Christians go overboard, but they do have good points. We are losing the fight against the liberals starting with my generation because we are worried more about guns than about what kids are being taught in schools.
Morality cannot be legislated, it must be taught from an early age. As long as we teach kids that we came from monkeys, they are gonna act like monkeys. Be careful of trying to bash the evangelical Christians because they do have good points, and they have some wrong points. We should be more worried about the liberals and their miscontrued facts about the myth of separation of church and state, and the second ammendment. I hope I have not offended anyone, but I just wanted to set the record straight. If you dont beleive me, I can get you some cold hard facts, and not just my opinion. Remember, all it takes is for us to quit bickering, and vote the bums out. It may take time, but vote with your convictions. Most of the gun- haters are evangelical haters as well.
Jay Cunningham
12-25-08, 08:47
The myth of separation of Church and State has been so warped by the liberal media and the ultra-left wingers that the majority of the people are fooled by it. Go back and read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. You will not find one mention of "Separation of Church and State". In fact, they mention God in it. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and he was the spokesperson of the liberals back then.
Go back and read your history, and research it carefully. The United States of America had its first settlement in 1609 in Jamestown, Virginia. It initially failed miserably, and most of the guys were treasure and fortune seekers. Many of them died due to the fact that they were not willing to work together. You all know the story of Pocahontas, and the events during that time. If you dont, shame on you.
Time warp with me to 1620. A group of RELIGIOUS SEPARATISTS ("crazy right wing folks who were non-comformists with the state's religion") fleed England and came to America. Why did they put up with the hardships that they faced to come to America? For freedom of speech and to worship. They fared better than their fellow countrymen in Jamestown because religion was the binding force that kept them together.
Now we go forward to the Revolutionary War. Most of you should know your history, because history has a way of repeating itself. They gave freedoms and rights to the individual citizen in order to prevent the government from restricting their rights that they were fighting for. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence risked his life by signing that document, and some were killed by the English, and quite a few were left penniless after the war.
After the War was over, and while the Constitution was waiting to be ratified, which took 12 years, from 1777 to 1789, Thomas Jefferson was a key writer of the Federalist Papers. These preached support of the ratification of the Constitution. An editor of a paper wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter because he was worried there was going to be a state religion. Thomas Jefferson replied in a letter and told him that there was separation of church and state. The context of the letter was that there would be no state sponsored religion. Many people were churchgoers and "religious" in that time. The liberals took that letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and ran with it. Many people have been deceived by what has happenned. I am not trying to step on anyones toes, and I know that many of you are older and wiser than I am. I am just a simple ole country boy, and I work as a Paramedic, and am not some city slicker lawyer, but I do know my history. Edmund Burke said " All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
We are allowing the liberals and the Dems to make progress. Many evangelical Christians go overboard, but they do have good points. We are losing the fight against the liberals starting with my generation because we are worried more about guns than about what kids are being taught in schools.
Morality cannot be legislated, it must be taught from an early age. As long as we teach kids that we came from monkeys, they are gonna act like monkeys. Be careful of trying to bash the evangelical Christians because they do have good points, and they have some wrong points. We should be more worried about the liberals and their miscontrued facts about the myth of separation of church and state, and the second ammendment. I hope I have not offended anyone, but I just wanted to set the record straight. If you dont beleive me, I can get you some cold hard facts, and not just my opinion. Remember, all it takes is for us to quit bickering, and vote the bums out. It may take time, but vote with your convictions. Most of the gun- haters are evangelical haters as well.
Keep on with yo' bad self and Republicans will keep on losin'...
Merry Christmas!
:cool:
Littlelebowski
12-25-08, 09:05
+1, The Katar. Evolution has precisely nothing to do with morality. Keep the religion out of our classrooms please.
CarlosDJackal
12-25-08, 10:56
...Keep the religion out of our classrooms please.
Why? IMHO, the lack of education about the different religions is a contributing factor to the current intolerance that exist against various religions. If I had my ruther, Religious Education should be made mandatory.
The Caveat is this does not mean that worship in ANY religion should be mandated. I am suggesting that they teach the different types of religion in a purely academic sense (i.e.: foundation, history, demographics, current practices, etc.).
If kids can learn about the various politicalparties, they should also be educated about the various religions. However, in both cases any teacher who tries to shove their own beliefs down their students' trhoats should be reprimanded or fired. JM2CW.
Littlelebowski
12-25-08, 11:25
That won't work, Carlos. How can you guarantee that every religion will be given equal time. Imagine the lawsuits if a teacher slips up in any way.
Let the parents teach about religion. Keep the religion out of the science classroom. Just because some take the bible literally is NO reason to change the scientific curriculum.
Jay Cunningham
12-25-08, 11:27
That won't work, Carlos. How can you guarantee that every religion will be given equal time. Imagine the lawsuits if a teacher slips up in any way.
Let the parents teach about religion. Keep the religion out of the science classroom. Just because some take the bible literally is NO reason to change the scientific curriculum.
Agree.
The problem is with gov't run schools. If we had a proper voucher system parents could send their children to a religiously-themed school if they so chose. They can now but it costs a lot more.
Keep on with yo' bad self and Republicans will keep on losin'...
Merry Christmas!
:cool:
...then they deserve to lose. If you want to elect a Leftard, then by all means vote for a demoturd. But when a Republitard wants to be elected bad enough that they are willing to compromise their foundation, in effect building their house on a foundation of sand, they should lose and resoundingly so. Why vote Retardican when you can vote for a real Leftard?
No, if the Republican Party wants to win, they will stand firm not wave in the wind that the last crew that occupied the White House or in the last campaing...
Jay Cunningham
12-25-08, 12:14
...then they deserve to lose. If you want to elect a Leftard, then by all means vote for a demoturd. But when a Republitard wants to be elected bad enough that they are willing to compromise their foundation, in effect building their house on a foundation of sand, they should lose and resoundingly so. Why vote Retardican when you can vote for a real Leftard?
No, if the Republican Party wants to win, they will stand firm not wave in the wind that the last crew that occupied the White House or in the last campaing...
There's that whole "bitterly clinging" thing again.
Merry Christmas!
There's that whole "bitterly clinging" thing again.
Merry Christmas!
You bet! Proudly so!
"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."
--Samuel Adams, letter to John Trumbull, 16 October 1778
"I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
--George Washington, letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May 1789
Merry Christmas!!!:)
Jay Cunningham
12-25-08, 12:45
One thing you might want to consider:
I know that you think the Republican Party is/was/should be the Conservative Christian Party, but blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Both groups are VERY religious, generally speaking, and Christian to boot. Most union members are Christian (and many are gun owners). We know how most union members vote.
Jimmy Carter is Christian and Bill Clinton is Christian (remember him going to church with his Bible?) and Barak Obama is Christian.
Now, before you reflexively say "They're not REALLY Christian!!" you might want to check fire, because who are you or anyone else to say someone or some group/groups is/are not "really Christian"? You think there aren't a lot of conservatives out there who aren't particularly religious? You'd be fooling yourself if you believed that.
That's why playing "religious class warfare" isn't going to get the Republicans anything but more losses.
I know that you think the Republican Party is/was/should be the Conservative Christian Party,.
With all due respect, you don't know that. I do however believe that one way to guarantee a loss in any national election is for the Retardican to disavow himself of Christians.
but blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Both groups are VERY religious, generally speaking, and Christian to boot. Most union members are Christian (and many are gun owners). We know how most union members vote.,.
Its a matter of priorities for them. They would much rather vote for the free handout as preached to them by their Victimologist Preachers.
Jimmy Carter is Christian
...being a Christian doesn't preclude someone from being an idiot.
...and Bill Clinton is Christian (remember him going to church with his Bible?)
...that is laughable.
... and Barak Obama is Christian.
Negative Ghost Rider. 20 years of attending a Black Seperatist church hiding behind a cross, does not a Christian make.
... You think there aren't a lot of conservatives out there who aren't particularly religious? You'd be fooling yourself if you believed that..
No, I don't think that. The difference is, most non-religious conservatives don't want to forcefeed Christians baal-type propoganda, unlike the Leftists.
... That's why playing "religious class warfare" isn't going to get the Republicans anything but more losses.
Who is advocating that? Certainly not I.
Jay Cunningham
12-25-08, 13:04
lol
Right away I noticed which part of my post you did not quote:
Now, before you reflexively say "They're not REALLY Christian!!" you might want to check fire, because who are you or anyone else to say someone or some group/groups is/are not "really Christian"?
:rolleyes:
Whats funnier is the three "gentlemen" you cited, all tried in their own way to appeal to Christian voters.....ironic that.
(and they won!)
decodeddiesel
12-25-08, 13:31
The myth of separation of Church and State has been so warped by the liberal media and the ultra-left wingers that the majority of the people are fooled by it. Go back and read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. You will not find one mention of "Separation of Church and State". In fact, they mention God in it. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and he was the spokesperson of the liberals back then.
Go back and read your history, and research it carefully. The United States of America had its first settlement in 1609 in Jamestown, Virginia. It initially failed miserably, and most of the guys were treasure and fortune seekers. Many of them died due to the fact that they were not willing to work together. You all know the story of Pocahontas, and the events during that time. If you dont, shame on you.
Time warp with me to 1620. A group of RELIGIOUS SEPARATISTS ("crazy right wing folks who were non-comformists with the state's religion") fleed England and came to America. Why did they put up with the hardships that they faced to come to America? For freedom of speech and to worship. They fared better than their fellow countrymen in Jamestown because religion was the binding force that kept them together.
Now we go forward to the Revolutionary War. Most of you should know your history, because history has a way of repeating itself. They gave freedoms and rights to the individual citizen in order to prevent the government from restricting their rights that they were fighting for. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence risked his life by signing that document, and some were killed by the English, and quite a few were left penniless after the war.
After the War was over, and while the Constitution was waiting to be ratified, which took 12 years, from 1777 to 1789, Thomas Jefferson was a key writer of the Federalist Papers. These preached support of the ratification of the Constitution. An editor of a paper wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter because he was worried there was going to be a state religion. Thomas Jefferson replied in a letter and told him that there was separation of church and state. The context of the letter was that there would be no state sponsored religion. Many people were churchgoers and "religious" in that time. The liberals took that letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and ran with it. Many people have been deceived by what has happenned. I am not trying to step on anyones toes, and I know that many of you are older and wiser than I am. I am just a simple ole country boy, and I work as a Paramedic, and am not some city slicker lawyer, but I do know my history. Edmund Burke said " All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
We are allowing the liberals and the Dems to make progress. Many evangelical Christians go overboard, but they do have good points. We are losing the fight against the liberals starting with my generation because we are worried more about guns than about what kids are being taught in schools.
Morality cannot be legislated, it must be taught from an early age. As long as we teach kids that we came from monkeys, they are gonna act like monkeys. Be careful of trying to bash the evangelical Christians because they do have good points, and they have some wrong points. We should be more worried about the liberals and their miscontrued facts about the myth of separation of church and state, and the second ammendment. I hope I have not offended anyone, but I just wanted to set the record straight. If you dont beleive me, I can get you some cold hard facts, and not just my opinion. Remember, all it takes is for us to quit bickering, and vote the bums out. It may take time, but vote with your convictions. Most of the gun- haters are evangelical haters as well.
*sigh* +1 with The_Kater and Littlelebowski on everything. Everyone should relax and enjoy today.
Merry Christmas!
Littlelebowski
12-25-08, 17:11
Which is itself a belief system guided by a primary principle, i.e. - a RELIGION.
I've already addressed that. It is not a belief system, it does not have tenets to follow, there are no leaders, and there are no core beliefs. You don't know what you are talking about and i mean that literally, not in an insulting fashion. I've been an atheist for over 20 years. Atheism is simply the absence of of belief in religion and the supernatural. Get on the forums at RichardDawkins.com and see exactly what I'm talking about. I am sick and damned tired of theists throwing out "well, atheism is a religion too so THERE!" There is no handbook for atheists, no places we go to meet, and let me tell you, aside from eschewing belief in the supernatural, we disagree about everything. Protestants and Catholics get along far better than atheists do.
*sigh* +1 with The_Kater and Littlelebowski on everything. Everyone should relax and enjoy today.
Merry Christmas!
+1 and Merry Christmas
toasterlocker
12-25-08, 23:01
I love how some people love to say "separation of church and state" is a myth because it isn't written EXACTLY that way in the Constitution, and then they cherry-pick quotes showing the PERSONAL religious beliefs of the Founders as if it somehow supports their argument. It doesn't.
The fact of the matter is the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is pretty clear about the role of religion in government. It becomes even more clear when you look at the quotes of the Founding Fathers regarding GOVERNMENT (not just the quotes about their PERSONALLY held beliefs.)
"Separation of church and state" is just a concise way of saying what is clearly there.
As for the party itself, the presidential ticket was inherently flawed. If they were trying to win over moderates and swing voters by nominating McCain, the choice of Palin as a running mate pretty much killed any moderate appeal that previously existed. Swing voters and moderates aside, Palin did a lot to damage the ticket just through wholesale incompetence. Whether or not you support her stances on all the issues, I don't know how anyone could support her after hearing her speak.
At least when the dems nominated a questionably qualified candidate, they picked someone who at least sounded intelligent.
At least when the dems nominated a questionably qualified candidate, they picked someone who at least sounded intelligent.
That's a good way of saying it. Biden sounds confident, convincing, and articulate. He appeared to win the debate with Palin. But when you examine what he says, he's wrong much of the time. When Palin has her facts mixed up, it's a lot more obvious, and it makes her look a lot worse.
Anyway, I agree with Katar et al. There is nothing about political and economic conservatism that requires a link to the more fundamentalist sects of the christian church. Every time a school district is overrun by fundamentalists and decides to teach creationism they become the laughing stock of the educated world.
Oh, and I did have a class in high school where we studied philosophy and religions of the world from a historic perspective. Great class, and very valuable - I think they just called it "Humanities". We studied christianity, buddhism, judaism, hinduism, as well as various philosophers, music, and art. We took field trips to the art museum, the symphony, opera, ballet, and to religious houses of worship.
This was an honors level class (not required), and I don't think any parents had any problems with the content. So it can be done, and it is very beneficial in broadening one's perspective. I also took a world religions class in college as a follow up - learned a lot there too.
However, fundamentalists would probably be against such classes, because in my case they exposed the absurdities and contradictions of christianity as much as the other religions. It doesn't take long to realize the similarities between the religions, and how the borrowed from each other over time for "marketing" purposes.
Try studying the early christian church through Constantine and the fall of the Roman Empire. It took a council of priests and a vote (!) to decide what the actual doctrines and beliefs of the church were.
Littlelebowski
12-26-08, 10:48
Try studying the early christian church through Constantine and the fall of the Roman Empire. It took a council of priests and a vote (!) to decide what the actual doctrines and beliefs of the church were.
Thank you for reminding me. I read a history of the early catholic church and the amount of doctrine that was contrived and voted upon was patently obvious. Doctrine that is accepted as gospel today, I might add.
Thank you for reminding me. I read a history of the early catholic church and the amount of doctrine that was contrived and voted upon was patently obvious. Doctrine that is accepted as gospel today, I might add.
The "epiphany" for me was when I learned how christianity is based on a fundamental contradiction. The is only one god, as stated in the 10 commandments, but some early christians elevated jesus to the status of a deity and prayed to him. Others viewed him as a great prophet, but still human.
This was a major problem because you can't have two gods in a monotheistic religion, and you can't pray to anything other than the one true god, lest the wrath of god come down upon you. So how does one pray to jesus? Well, he's the son of god, but also god. You pray through him to god. Then they threw in the holy spirit and came up with the "trinity" - 3 are 1 yet still 3, but still 1. If you can't convince them with brilliance, baffle them with...
It amazes me how many avowed christians have never even considered this paradox as they pray to jesus. After being brought up in the Catholic and Episcopal churches, and going through Sunday school and confirmation, I can say that it never came up in any of their teachings. Having a god junior just doesn't fit in with there only being one god, so they avoided the subject as much as possible.
But that is not to say that the teachings attributed to jesus don't still form a great model for people and for society. There is great truth in the teachings, regardless of his divinity. Yet I see so many people being more obsessed with proclaiming his divinity than in following what he said.
Jay Cunningham
12-26-08, 11:42
Let's try and keep it on topic.
The "epiphany" for me was when I learned how christianity is based on a fundamental contradiction. The is only one god, as stated in the 10 commandments, but some early christians elevated jesus to the status of a deity and prayed to him. Others viewed him as a great prophet, but still human.
This was a major problem because you can't have two gods in a monotheistic religion, and you can't pray to anything other than the one true god, lest the wrath of god come down upon you. So how does one pray to jesus? Well, he's the son of god, but also god. You pray through him to god. Then they threw in the holy spirit and came up with the "trinity" - 3 are 1 yet still 3, but still 1. If you can't convince them with brilliance, baffle them with...
It amazes me how many avowed christians have never even considered this paradox as they pray to jesus. After being brought up in the Catholic and Episcopal churches, and going through Sunday school and confirmation, I can say that it never came up in any of their teachings. Having a god junior just doesn't fit in with there only being one god, so they avoided the subject as much as possible.
But that is not to say that the teachings attributed to jesus don't still form a great model for people and for society. There is great truth in the teachings, regardless of his divinity. Yet I see so many people being more obsessed with proclaiming his divinity than in following what he said.
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1.
One thing you might want to consider:
I know that you think the Republican Party is/was/should be the Conservative Christian Party, but blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Both groups are VERY religious, generally speaking, and Christian to boot. Most union members are Christian (and many are gun owners). We know how most union members vote.
Jimmy Carter is Christian and Bill Clinton is Christian (remember him going to church with his Bible?) and Barak Obama is Christian.
Now, before you reflexively say "They're not REALLY Christian!!" you might want to check fire, because who are you or anyone else to say someone or some group/groups is/are not "really Christian"? You think there aren't a lot of conservatives out there who aren't particularly religious? You'd be fooling yourself if you believed that.
That's why playing "religious class warfare" isn't going to get the Republicans anything but more losses.
QFT. But its not going to be heard.
Actually, Jamestown was 1607, the Dying Time was 1609, when they lost about 70~80% of the population to to hunger, disease, and warfare with the natives.
Believe me, religion played a big role in the Jamestown Colony, the only period map known of Jamestown was made by the Spanish spy Zuniga, and the church is prominently displayed.
By the time the Pilgrims made it to Mass, Jamestown was a highly functional colony, with the first representative gov't in the New World (met in 1619).
It was primarily a business venture. One of the reasons it almost failed was the 1) terrible location, but the Royal Charter decreed that they had to settle on land that was not currently occupied by the Indians. So they got a swamp, and 2) most of the original men were military adventurers, gentlemen who's carreers were made fighting in Ireland, and the religious wars on the European continent, who weren't farmers.
It had nothing to do with a "lack of God" at the colony.
I did my archaeological field school at Jamestown in 2000.
:cool:
If the Republican Party keeps putting people up for office that integrate their personal views of religion into their policy decisions, and are vocal about it, they will continue to loose major national elections.
The myth of separation of Church and State has been so warped by the liberal media and the ultra-left wingers that the majority of the people are fooled by it. Go back and read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. You will not find one mention of "Separation of Church and State". In fact, they mention God in it. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and he was the spokesperson of the liberals back then.
Go back and read your history, and research it carefully. The United States of America had its first settlement in 1609 in Jamestown, Virginia. It initially failed miserably, and most of the guys were treasure and fortune seekers. Many of them died due to the fact that they were not willing to work together. You all know the story of Pocahontas, and the events during that time. If you dont, shame on you.
Time warp with me to 1620. A group of RELIGIOUS SEPARATISTS ("crazy right wing folks who were non-comformists with the state's religion") fleed England and came to America. Why did they put up with the hardships that they faced to come to America? For freedom of speech and to worship. They fared better than their fellow countrymen in Jamestown because religion was the binding force that kept them together.
Now we go forward to the Revolutionary War. Most of you should know your history, because history has a way of repeating itself. They gave freedoms and rights to the individual citizen in order to prevent the government from restricting their rights that they were fighting for. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence risked his life by signing that document, and some were killed by the English, and quite a few were left penniless after the war.
After the War was over, and while the Constitution was waiting to be ratified, which took 12 years, from 1777 to 1789, Thomas Jefferson was a key writer of the Federalist Papers. These preached support of the ratification of the Constitution. An editor of a paper wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter because he was worried there was going to be a state religion. Thomas Jefferson replied in a letter and told him that there was separation of church and state. The context of the letter was that there would be no state sponsored religion. Many people were churchgoers and "religious" in that time. The liberals took that letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote and ran with it. Many people have been deceived by what has happenned. I am not trying to step on anyones toes, and I know that many of you are older and wiser than I am. I am just a simple ole country boy, and I work as a Paramedic, and am not some city slicker lawyer, but I do know my history. Edmund Burke said " All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
We are allowing the liberals and the Dems to make progress. Many evangelical Christians go overboard, but they do have good points. We are losing the fight against the liberals starting with my generation because we are worried more about guns than about what kids are being taught in schools.
Morality cannot be legislated, it must be taught from an early age. As long as we teach kids that we came from monkeys, they are gonna act like monkeys. Be careful of trying to bash the evangelical Christians because they do have good points, and they have some wrong points. We should be more worried about the liberals and their miscontrued facts about the myth of separation of church and state, and the second ammendment. I hope I have not offended anyone, but I just wanted to set the record straight. If you dont beleive me, I can get you some cold hard facts, and not just my opinion. Remember, all it takes is for us to quit bickering, and vote the bums out. It may take time, but vote with your convictions. Most of the gun- haters are evangelical haters as well.
decodeddiesel
12-26-08, 13:36
Actually, Jamestown was 1607, the Dying Time was 1609, when they lost about 70~80% of the population to to hunger, disease, and warfare with the natives.
Believe me, religion played a big role in the Jamestown Colony, the only period map known of Jamestown was made by the Spanish spy Zuniga, and the church is prominently displayed.
By the time the Pilgrims made it to Mass, Jamestown was a highly functional colony, with the first representative gov't in the New World (met in 1619).
It was primarily a business venture. One of the reasons it almost failed was the 1) terrible location, but the Royal Charter decreed that they had to settle on land that was not currently occupied by the Indians. So they got a swamp, and 2) most of the original men were military adventurers, gentlemen who's carreers were made fighting in Ireland, and the religious wars on the European continent, who weren't farmers.
It had nothing to do with a "lack of God" at the colony.
I did my archaeological field school at Jamestown in 2000.
:cool:
If the Republican Party keeps putting people up for office that integrate their personal views of religion into their policy decisions, and are vocal about it, they will continue to loose major national elections.
That is cool. Thanks for posting that. Growing up in New England I am a fan of early American history and this is very fascinating to me.
I also agree 100% with your statement about secularity. I do honestly think the "people" within the GOP who go about figuring these things out are probably coming to this very realization. I think the next 4 years are going to be very interesting for the GOP.
And stuff like this isn't helping either:
CNN) -- A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas -- which included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" -- was clearly intended as a joke.
The title of the song about President-elect Barack Obama was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column.
"I think most people recognize political satire when they see it," Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. "I think RNC members understand that."
The song, set to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon," was first played on conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show in 2007.
Its title was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column that suggested President-elect Barack Obama appealed to those who feel guilty about the nation's history of mistreatment of African-Americans. Saltsman said the song, penned by his longtime friend Paul Shanklin, should be easily recognized as satire directed at the Times.
The CD sent to RNC members, first reported by The Hill on Friday, is titled "We Hate the USA" and also includes songs referencing former presidential candidate John Edwards and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, among other targets.
According to The Hill, other song titles, some of which were in bold font, were: "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish Banner."
Saltsman was national campaign manager for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential bid in 2007 and 2008. Before that, he held a variety of posts, including a number of positions under former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/26/rnc.obama.satire/index.html
At least when the dems nominated a questionably qualified candidate, they picked someone who at least sounded intelligent.
Who would that be?
It amazes me how many avowed christians have never even considered this paradox as they pray to jesus.
Its not really a paradox at all. Well, maybe to you...
Not that is has anything to do with the topic at hand...
decodeddiesel
12-27-08, 12:32
Who would that be?
Well if there's one thing you've said in this thread which I totally agree with is this. Joe Biden is a straight imbecile. Ever seen the "That's not change that's just more of the same" from the *gag* DNC. :rolleyes: What a tool.
toasterlocker
12-27-08, 14:18
Who would that be?
Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well what I mean. Even if you disagree with Obama and Biden on all issues, 100%, there is no denying they are both more articulate, intelligent SOUNDING speakers than Palin.
Not saying they ARE intelligent, just that they "sound" it. At least compared to Palin.
Palin was a gimmick, and it didn't work out well. Anyone that was "excited" about her is just about as foolish as anyone who was "excited" about Obama, they just happen to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Even if you disagree with Obama and Biden on all issues, 100%, there is no denying they are both more articulate, intelligent SOUNDING speakers than Palin.
Articulate implies intelligence. Biden is neither. Obama? Well, if you like sing songy phrasology and a lot of "uhs" and "ahs" and vague speech, ok, I'll give you that.
Palin? Not a professional politician, at all. And it showed. Probably why I liked her.
Palin? Not a professional politician, at all. And it showed. Probably why I liked her.[/QUOTE]
toasterlocker
12-27-08, 19:23
Articulate implies intelligence. Biden is neither. Obama? Well, if you like sing songy phrasology and a lot of "uhs" and "ahs" and vague speech, ok, I'll give you that.
Palin? Not a professional politician, at all. And it showed. Probably why I liked her.
Oh, so you ARE being deliberately obtuse. Thanks for clarifying that.
I will say again, I never implied they were smart, just that they SOUNDED leaps and bounds smarter than Palin, which is not exactly a challenge.
And once again, I'll say that anyone that actually was excited about Palin is just the political opposite of someone who was excited about Obama. A fool that is willing to ignore qualifications in favor of charisma and cult of personality.
Someone who wants to ban guns, or someone who wants to ban books. I'll take neither.
Oh, so you ARE being deliberately obtuse. Thanks for clarifying that.
Well if it makes you feel better, I'll agree to that.
I will say again, I never implied they were smart, just that they SOUNDED leaps and bounds smarter than Palin, which is not exactly a challenge.
So its ok if they aren't smart just as long as they SOUND smart. Right. That's beautiful.
And once again, I'll say that anyone that actually was excited about Palin is just the political opposite of someone who was excited about Obama. A fool that is willing to ignore qualifications in favor of charisma and cult of personality.
Excited? Now you are being obtuse. Did I like her? You betcha! Like does not equal excited. The fact of the matter is/was the Retardicans had sealed their fate by the selection of candidates they fielded and the leftist policies they pursued over the last 8 years trying to placate the demoturds. A demoturd was bound to win regardless. Even a supposed "maverick" wasn't going to sway the masses.
Someone who wants to ban guns, or someone who wants to ban books. I'll take neither.
Yet another obtuse comparison! Two in a row for ya. Doing good there...(might want to change your tactic or you will end up making even me, The Obtuse One, look good!;) )
As for the banning books urban legend, nice try. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
By the way, it would be nigh impossible to ban books without the prerequisite gun ban already in place.
toasterlocker
12-27-08, 23:39
So its ok if they aren't smart just as long as they SOUND smart. Right. That's beautiful...
As for the banning books urban legend, nice try. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
By the way, it would be nigh impossible to ban books without the prerequisite gun ban already in place.
Reading closely is something you should give a try.
-I never said I thought YOU were excited, I just expressed my opinion of anyone who was.
-I never said it was okay to sound smart and not be smart. I just said it was bad strategy that the Republicans picked a VP who was neither intelligent or intelligent sounding.
-And I didn't say Palin banned books, just that she WANTED to. Go back and read again if you missed it.
Reading comprehension my friend. An important thing. Try reading what is actually there instead of exaggerating for the sake of making your own argument look better.
It should start with guys like Bobby Jindall. Well spoken, a fiscal conservative, and has no problem standing up for what is right and more importantly standing against what is wrong. Enough of this BS "reaching across the aisle".
Reading comprehension my friend. An important thing.
Take your own advice next time then.
It should start with guys like Bobby Jindall. Well spoken, a fiscal conservative, and has no problem standing up for what is right and more importantly standing against what is wrong. Enough of this BS "reaching across the aisle".
Absolutely!
toasterlocker
12-28-08, 20:24
Take your own advice next time then.
Um, how so?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.