I have edited my blog to reflect somethings I have change my view on.
I cannot choose Barack Obama because:
#1 He is pro Choice
#2 He doesn't believe in capital punishment
#3 He doesn't support the tax credits for private schools
#4 He believes we need to do something about global warming
#5 . He believe in Universal Healthcare
#6 He believes in Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants
#7 He opposes the war effort
#8 He believes in Stem Cell research on embryos
#9 He is not patriotic. that I have seen.
I hear everyone supporting Barack Obama. I simply cannot see what is so great about him? My friend is voting for this man because he is handsome and sounds like a really nice guy.
I have watched him. He does sound like a nice man. His family seems really nice too.
However, he sounds like a sweet talker. He has all these grand plans to make America better and I don't like them. He is a socialist in disguise.
Plus, I have seen that he isn't patriotic about our country. I have to say, You want to be president and aren't patriotic?? This gives me great cause for concern. Why does he want to be president?
Some have said this whole patriotic thing is just ridiculous..If patriotism is some how bad. Then you must hate America!
Being patriotic is by definition one who loves his country. Not the love of government.
If you are not a patriot you are a traitor. This doesn't mean I am a fascist. I believe the government has plenty wrong with it. I believe in our country the way it was founded originally.. I am a constituionalist!
I can't support Obama either. For me, it comes down to one reason: he will swear on the day of his oath of office to uphold the constitution and then (as he says himself) go back on it the next day with all his government-expansionist techniques. If a politician fails the basic test of keeping his/her word to uphold the constitution, he/she will soon loose my support.
Actually, Obama doesn't oppose the "war effort" (which actually isn't a war) because he will still keep American troops in the area, just not in Iraq. No difference really.
><>Brian
He says so himself. In 2002 he said he was an opponent of the war effort and in 2004 he campaigned against the war. While since he has said that some of the troops can stay there to teach the Iraqi police and do counterterrorism.
Check out this website:
http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=4
Thanks for your comments by the way :)
~Heather
He says he opposes the way that isn't really a war, but want to keep people there. Doesn't make sense to me. More people die either way.
><>Brian
Question: Ever heard of the "either/or" fallacy?
Question: Ever heard of the "premise based on assumption" fallacy?
While I agree with your stance that Obama is one of the most dangerous candidates that would threaten our way of life, your reasoning is not sound. It started out with why Obama shouldn't be elected, which was good. Your opinions are valid. Then you went off in a whole different, unrelated direction that discredits the rest of your good content.
Can you be more specific? How did I discredit my good content??
Thanks,
Heather
What is the real definition of patriotic? How can one tell if another human being possesses this quality or not? I believe that Barack Obama wants the very best for this wonderful country. As for being patriotic or not, that is not for me to decide.
I agree that your arguments are not sound but I disagree in the fact that Obama would not make a great president. He will make a wonderful president!
Patriotic means to express one's love for his or her country..
How do you express something? By saying something or doing something. SINGING the national anthem, putting your hand on your heart,
Those are some ways to show patriotism.
Two of you now have said my arguements aren't sound..
I have made no arguements.. Just stated reasons I could not vote for him.
I made my decision based on this website:
http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=4
Those are just symbols. You can not do those things and still be patriotic.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
What are just symbols??
The examples that you gave for being patriotic.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I just want to clear up this whole business about Obama not saying the pledge or being unpatriotic...the footage that they've used to support the claim that he doesn't say the pledge is footage of him singing the National Anthem, not saying the pledge. It is not, and never has been, tradition to put one's hand over one's heart to sing the National Anthem, and so he didn't. He still sang along, though, and all this talk of his being unpatriotic just stemmed from the fact that those sitting on either side of him chose to put their hands over their hearts. He is patriotic, and he does say the pledge.
You are, of course, quite entitled to your opinions, and I completely respect them. I just wanted to address this rumor, because I've been hearing it a lot lately.
You just gave me some good reasons to VOTE OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey that is great! At least you know where he stands and if that is your choice so be it.
wow, most of your twelve things is the reason why i would vote for Obama.
I am Pro Abortion (Obama is pro choice, there is a difference)
i do not believe in capital punishment
I support gay marriage
i oppose the war.
why in the hell should he not believe in having empathy for low income familites.
how is Obama not patriotic? and how does he believe in global warming? as can recall Obama wants to stop global warming.
Liv Life Your Way
Obviously, these are my beliefs.
Those may very well be reasons for you to vote for him. Why do you want to try to make me believe what you believe?
Look at this website: HE does believe in global warming. Unless I misread.
http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=4
Global warming is a scare tactic and I think it is stupid.
again my beliefs.
Gosh you guys are so attacking! Geez, and trying to make it a personal attack on me.
Typical, libs I guess.
I am sorry i do not mean to personally attack you.
I never said or implied that i wanted you to believe what i believe.
I have seen Obama's issues on global warming, and he wants to work to more energy efficent cars and he wants to reduce carbon emissions.
"typical, libs"
By the way i have many conservative and liberal views and do not consider myself a demorcratic or a republican. I vote for whom ever i see as the best candiddate.
Liv Life Your Way
typical libs is more ad hominem than anything I've seen on this blog. It isn't, but it's closer to one than anything anyone else has said.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Let's face it, there is a lot of ad hominem coming from both sides. I'm a person who would most definitely be considered liberal, and yet I would probably not be considered "typical" in that I attack arguments, not people. I can't stand people who make uneducated arguments which use faulty logic, no matter what their political lean.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
I agree completely.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Obama says that too. I think civil unions are great. Go for it.. I have gay friends. I love them tremendously.
I do have empathy for low income families. So does the government. If you want us to have more empathy, which means more taxes.. YOU go right ahead and give your tax return to someone who needs it more than YOU!
I don't oppose the war.
so then if you believe in marriages between Homosexuals and empathy for low income families then why would you list those two as being "reason to not vote for Obama"
that is contradicting yourself
Liv Life Your Way
If your "love" for your gay friends doesn't compel you to want to see them treated as equals in our society, then I think you have a pretty odd definition of what it means to "love."
pericvale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First of all, hi Percivale and thanks for your comments.
Second, here is my common sense approach to gay marriage:
Eliminate state marriage. Remove the government from the issue completely. Issue civil union certificates and let churches and churches only deal with who they want to marry. This way, progressive churches can marry gay couples and conservative churches can...not. But in the eyes of the law everybody is equal both in rights and the name given to their relationship. I tend to favor government solving problems, but in this case they need to keep their role minimal, it would help the situation more.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts III
Yeah, I think that part is rather obvious. Why should the state issue marriage contracts? I've been struggling and struggling with why we have the government issue marriage certificates anyway. Some people can't think outside the box, I guess.
Although I generally see the solution as less government. :-) Not always, though.
><>Brian
While the Libertarian in me is always attracted to ANY plan that involves taking a power away from the Federal Government and putting it directly back into the hands of The People, there are two considerations that lead me to reject your proposition.
The first is that your reasoning would still represent an unconstutional act. The freedom to marry has been declared by our Supreme Court to be a "basic civil right" (cf. Loving v. Virginia) that must be afforded to ALL citizens, and the churches in this country do not have any special claim to the term (or the institution) of marriage. To suggest that a public institution should be taken away from The People and give solely to churches to distribute as THEY see fit represents an unconstitutional establishment. Churchs are perfectly free to marry (or not) whomever they wish, but they do NOT have the right to lay claim to ALL marriages.
Secondly...your plan, while attractive from a certain point-of-view, is completely unreaslitic. There is no reasonable chance that an institution that is so ingrained in our culture and government could be sucessfully disentangled from our government. Marriage IS a part of our culture and laws, and it isn't likely to go away, and as such our effort should be directed (IMHO) towards ensuring that this instution brought into consistent line with our Constitution's requirement of Equal Protection.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I never said that my idea was realistic, I said it made sense to me and in my eyes gives the most equality. I understand that we guarantee marriage as a right, but I think that the Libertarian approach would gain bi-partisan support. Do you think it would be easier for everybody to have civil unions or marriages in the eyes of the government? I think the former. And while the most realistic solution, civil unions for gay couples, will most likely happen soon and would be a major step in guaranteeing the 1000 privileges associated with marriage, I want a solution that doesn't separate people by using different titles.
It's obvious that we have the same opinion on the issue, but differ in out methods. You made a nice point with the Loving v. Virginia case. Ideally, I'd like to see everyone married. I think it's more realistic to see everyone civil unioned.
So, what is your take on what should be done?
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
How are you not treated as an equal?
What is it that you want?
I think what our LGBTQ brothers and sisters want is to be treated equally under law. If the government insists on being involved with marriage, then they should by law extend marriage to gay couples. Not just the rights, but the title as well. If the government issues marriage licenses, they should be issued to all. If civil unions are issued, they too should be issued to all. Imagine the uproar that would come about if it was decided that biracial couples were against God's will and therefore they would be given civil unions with the same right as marriage. Just over 50 years ago that practice, known as separate but equal, was determined to be unconstitutional. However, the rights guaranteed to people of color are not given to the LGBT community. There are no hate crime laws, they cannot have legal benefits of marriage such as joint tax returns, insurance benefits, authority to make medical decisions. The also often cannot adopt, and do not get the benefit of age of consent legislation.
This is how they are not treated equally. As I said earlier, I fully support civil unions and respect the dominant religious perspective on marriage. However, the government must stop issuing marriage licenses and whatnot, and serve only in the realm of civil unions in order to be truly equal. Marriage should be a matter of each individual church. Separate labels breed separation in a country that needs to unify around common hopes and dreams.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
That makes sense. I have never understood why licenses were issued in the first place. Another way to get money I suppose.
Thank you for all your comments. You are a very intelligent man. You have changed my opinions quite a bit!
It is difficult to treat this question seriously, but I'll try. Our Constitution (specifically the Fourteenth Amendment) requires that ALL citizens be given the Equal Protection of our Laws, and afforded the same immunities and privileges. Our Supreme Court has ruled...consistently...that the "freedom to marry" is a basic civil right that is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Marriage is a complex legal institution that affords more than 1000 instituional protections (and responsibilities) that cannot be accessed by citizens living in a same-sex relationship.
The simple fact is that same-sex couples are being denied the freedom to marry. In some States (like my own home, Georgia) have even gone so far as to say that a same-sex couple may not even seek to protect our families through purely PRIVATE contracts. The Constitutional Amendment in our State actively prevents me, for example, from granting a medical power of attorney to my partner--even though we COULD make that arrangement if we were not in a relationship together--because doing so is "too much" like a "marriage."
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Obama never supported gay marriage. He thinks "marriage" is defined by your church or congregation and he wants to leave churches to figure that out. But he's all for civil unions because that would fall under the purview of government.
He said it in a debate... I can't remember which one because I've frankly watched wayy too many of them.
You are right. He never supported gay marriage.
Who gives a crap if twan and terry want to get married. That's not the reason people live in poverty, why we're in a neverending war in Iraq, why middle-class families are struggling to pay bills, why our gas prices are so damn high, etc.
What's my stance on gay marriage? Who gives a flying f*ck? That's their business to live like that. They not bothering me.
"#2 He believes the phrase "separation of church and state" are in our constitution. When in fact it says that in the communist constitution."
While those exact words are not in our Constitution, the implication is very strong. Further more, the people who wrote and passed that amendment talked about it.
And, there is actually not a separation of Church and State in communism. There is an outlaw of religion by the state. That is certainly not separation. That is control
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
LOL!!!!! You made me laugh!!!!!!
Why? Although, there's nothing wrong with a good laugh. :))
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
actually I misread what you had said.
I don't see this very strong implication you are refering to.
this is what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
congress cannot state that there is a government religion.
That was written so that we could not end up like England. Haveing Catholosism being the Only religion.
A) Anglicanism is the state religion of England.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
From the treaty of tripoli
" Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I say bull crap. It was founded on principles taken from the bible. Go look.
How did the founding fathers come up with idea that murder was wrong?
Because GOD said so!
Actually, the Constitution never said anything about murder. But in that line of reasoning, every single religion and code of law condemns killing. Hammurabi's code is pre-Christian. Egyptian civilization predates Christianity. Greek and Roman Civilizations predate Christianity. Chinese civilizations predate Christianity. None of these civilizations condoned killing. And, even if they didn't, you may as well say that the Constitution was based on Hebrew principles, since that also predates Christianity.
Also, how on Earth would they have come up with the idea of a Democratic Republic from the bible? Most religions (all that I know) are very authoritarian.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Then why does it say in the Declaration of Independence.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
First of all, the Declaration of Independence is not a government document. It is two things. One, propaganda and two, a letter to a monarch who was head of a church. Also, if you read the phrasing where god is mentioned, it strongly suggests deism.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
That is the stupidist thing I have EVER heard... Why do you find this ridiculousness at?
What's so stupid about it?
Lets see, the Declaration of Independence was written before there even was a United States. It was written for two purposes. One is obvious. It was declaring the intention of the colonies to leave the British Empire. But, if you think about it, why have all that inflammatory language? That's was for the second purpose, which was to rouse up the complacent every day guy that didn't really care about Britain owning them.
As for Deism, it wasn't an uncommon belief in that day and age. It was the age of Enlightenment when deism became a fairly common belief among the intelligentsia. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was certainly a deist, at the very least.
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
Thomas Jefferson
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Thomas Jefferson
"In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Maybe not so stupid after all. I will research this more..
I have been researching. I believe those quotes are taken out of context.
Here is something I did find interesting;
Thomas Jefferson said April 21,1803
"my views are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and ver different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a christian only in the sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his dotrines in preference to all others."
He wrote that to Dr. Benjamin Rush.
He wrote to Henry Fry June 17, 1804
"I consider the dotrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of which have ever been invented."
And in the letter to Danbury Baptist
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, the he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, the the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole american people which declared that their legislature should " make no law respecting the establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof," Thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
In 1781 he wrote
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis of conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
He may have been a deist but that doesn't change the fact that christian principles are what formed this country!
...that you might want to explore Mr. Jefferson's beliefs a little more closely. Jefferson viewed the teachings of Jesus as a philosophy. He even wrote his own bible (The Jefferson Bible), specifically to separate the moral teachings of Jesus from the supernatural elements from which he held no small amount of contempt.
For example, your own quote taken from the letter written by Mr. Jefferson to Benjamin Rush is itself taken significantly out of context. You can read the full text >here. Note passage that follows your quote, and note that the source that you used conveniently eliminated from the actual text, without notation...
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."
Jefferson DID believe in a deity, but not in a way to which a typical modern "christian" would relate. In response to the question of whether or not he considered Jesus to be deific, he said this...
"The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines."
The body of letters and works surrounding The Jefferson Bible is quite enlightening, I think, about the rational deism that compelled Mr. Jefferson to say...
"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."
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Honestly, Thomas Jefferson's beliefs were his own. He says so himself that it was between him and God.
Also I would like to point out that he penned the Declaration of Independence. Showing the christian morality of this countries founders. I don't care about Thomas Jefferson's walk with the Lord at this point.
My point was that the people thought well enough of Thomas Jefferson that he wrote the Declaration of Indepence for them. Stating what the people believed at that time. The people allowed Thomas Jefferson to speak for them. Whether they were his beliefs personally or not. Obviously, the people who founded this country were in fact Christian!
Now one of you stated that the declaration was Propaganda. So if that is the case then the letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was ALSO propaganda and the man in his entirety is to not be trusted!!
Separation of church and state is not ANYWHERE in the constitution. I have yet to find it.
The first amendment again says nothing of separation of church and state. ONlY that
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You are reading into the constitution a letter that was to a church and written by a Propagandist!
Propaganda isn't some horrible evil thing. The Declaration had a purpose to rouse the rabble of the colonies, which it sort of succeeded in doing. The letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was informative, not propagative. There is a major difference.
And, no, the Declaration of Independence does not show Christianity. It shows that these men believed in a god, but there is no reason, based on what was written, to assume that it was your god.
You forgot about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in your bold. Yeah, the establishment of religion can't be interfered with, neither can the exercise of said religion However, if the government was not separated, equally, from every religion, how could that be? Once the government is involved in religion, that would grant it the right to make laws about it.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Yes, the government CANNOT interfere with religious beliefs. That is what separation of church and state is all about!!! To control government. Keep it where it should be. Not about keeping Bible reading or God out of schools.
I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson instituted bible reading as a necessary thing in public school.
"Not about keeping Bible reading or God out of schools."
In public schools, it sure as hell means that, exactly.
"I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson instituted bible reading as a necessary thing in public school."
Ever heard of bible as lit class?
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
No I haven't they took bible reading out of schools YEARS ago!
Not that I think it should be there. That should be kept at home.
Actually, there are plenty of Bible as Lit classes that I've seen, even in public schools. They don't look at it as a religious text, but they do look at it.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
...that was perpetuated by Barton. You can read more about the details behind this story here. After being confronted, Barton admitted the quote on which this claim is based is not credible. You can read more about that here.
It is obvious that you are relying heavily on Barton's "work" for your arguments. You really need to do a crediblity check on this guy. He is a known fraud and revisionist that has absolutely no credibilty among legitimate historians of this period.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I don't even know who "Barton" is. I am reading a book by William Federer
These two revisionists quote each other rather liberally. Do a search for their names, and see how often they pop up together. Most of the questionable material, however, originates from Barton's "work."
Here is a website that thoroughly vets the misrepresentations of these authors:
The Barton Chronicles
Including some William Federer errors as well
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Why would I trust the source you have listed?
Well, considering that I have provided you with more than one very specific example demonstrating that your source has misrepresented the material you cited, you could just take my word for it...but I wouldn't suggest it (after all, I'm a bit nuts). However, the sites that I am directing you towards are thoroughly cited to an exacting, scholarly standard, it it should be easy enough for you to use the material as a guide to help you track down the original materials, and then judge for youself which is more credible.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I will look into it. Thanks Percivale.
...and I hate skinny boxes. So, I will reply to you below in a new thread.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm going to do to 2 things. One, I'm going to second the opinions of Percivale.
Two, I'm going to thank you. You found the wall of separation quote. I couldn't find it. That quote firmly shows that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers for the government to be secular.
"He may have been a deist but that doesn't change the fact that christian principles are what formed this country!"
Really? Where in the bible is there anything about democracy? Where in the bible is there anything about a three branched government? Checks and balances? Bicameral congress? Where in the bible is there anything separation of church and state? (Thanks for the quote) Where in the bible does it say that people have freedom of speech? Where in the bible does it say anything about maintaining a well-regulated militia? Where does it say that soldiers can't be stuck in your house? Where does it say anything about fair trials, warrants and the like?
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
You need to read the Federalist Papers.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
Read most of 'em, but it was a while ago. Don't recall any mention of god, but I wouldn't swear by it. However (and you're not going to like this) those are the definition of propaganda! The purpose was to get the nation behind the Constitution.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
You know I think you are pretty cute.. And you make me smile. I love having good debate and great conversations :) I will keep posting :)
:dances:
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I also wanted to say,
That the bible doesn't have those exact words you used but some principles are derived from the bible. I never said ALL ideas come from the bible.
Do you have a problem with the bible or God being involved in the making of this country? Just wondering.
Well, where does it imply them?
And, I have no problem with what is true. I certainly don't think god had anything to do with the founding of this country, because I don't believe he (she/it/whatever) exists. That doesn't mean, right off the bat, that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country, but I don't see any evidence of that being the case.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Would not that same reasoning stand for the derivation of the phrase "separation of church and state" from the Constitution?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
This quote has also carefully edited to confuse its original meaning...
This this mis-quote perpetuated by the known fraud, Charles Barton (a man who has is widely known in the scholarly community for falsifying his sources...the spelling gives away the source...it reflects a typo in Barton's book America's God and Country). This quote originates from a letter that Jefferson sent along with a copy of Priestley's History of the Corruptions of Christiantiy to his friend, Henry FRy. Note once again the part that your source conveniently leaves out...
"The work of D Priestly which I sent you has always been a favorite of mine. I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented by priestcraft and established by kingcraft constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind..."
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but whomever is feeding you these sources to you is either very poorly informed, or perpetuating a deliberate fraud in the hopes that you will misconstrue (as you have) the intent of Mr. Jefferson's words.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I am not listening to ANYONE. It is called reading books. I think you want to dismiss anything that is christian so that you can live your life without any conviction!
You want to dismiss God that is your choice but sir you cannot change history!
...figuratively, if not literally. And, just because someone writes a book, doesn't mean that it is a good book, or that it is accurate historically. I agree that one SHOULD not attempt to re-write history, but I contend that it is YOUR sources, and not mine that have done so. I have provided you with some very specific examples where your sources have intentionally misrepresented the words of our founders in order to change the meaning of what was acutally said. That alone should be sufficient to get you to turn a questioning eye towards the credibility of these sources.
I do have convictions, and one of those is a desire for TRUTH. The fact that you are christian, and that I am not should have absolutely nothing to do with our study of the contents of history. The simple fact is that men like Barton and Federer are relying on the fact that THEY are your only exposure to the material they discuss. They use the title of "christian" as a means to get you to accept their position without giving the matter any serious thought, and pursuing more in-depth research for yourself.
You have been lied to by these men, and no doubt it stings to realize that you fell for those lies. But, you seem to have a curious mind, and the fact that you read is certainly encouraging. I would suggest that keep reading, but this time from sources that motivated by a desire to uncover our history, rather than to present it in the context of a desired point-of-view.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I quite agree with you. I have been mislead and it pisses me off actually. I have great cause for concern that supposed christian men would do such a thing as to make up things that the founders said. I am looking for the truth as well. Truth is what is important to me. If the things that I have learned are lies then I have no leg to stand on. It makes me mad that these "Christians" would dishonor God in such a fashion! It makes other true christians look ignorant.
Alright, here are a few things that I'd like to bring up. First of all, the comments criticizing you made some of the same errors you made at the end, such as jumping to conclusions. Patriotism is pride in one's country, and indeed one can do things to show pride in their country. However, I pose a few questions. Do you think that a terrorist would be afraid to recite the national anthem, to put their hand over their heart, to say the pledge of allegiance? Obama made a bold move in not wearing his flag lapel pin, stating that patriotism is more than appearances. I believe that Obama is very patriotic in that he cares for his country, sees problems, and wants the opportunity to fix the problems he percieves. I don't think that the patriotism of any of the candidates can be questioned. I would like to know what evidence you have, other than perhaps his lack of a pin with, when we think about it, very little patriotic meaning, to support your claim that he is not patriotic.
Also, in regards to your last statement, I agree that if one is not patriotic, then one is a traitor. However, I think you need to bear in mind that people perceive love for country in different ways and act based on those conceptions. Some people are more patriotic than others, and patriotism is relative. Thus, someone you may see as unpatriotic is most likely just not meeting your standards of patriotism, they are not a traitor.
Additionally, the other reasons you cite for not voting for Obama should be expanded, and your blog title would more aptly be named "12 reasons not to vote for the Democratic Party" as both major candidates share those positions.
I will in closing add that almost all (99%) credible scientists agree that human beings releasing certain molecules into the air are altering climate. Global warming is not so much something to be believed in anymore, as the change is real and measurable, and if we don't do something about it, we're going to be in trouble. People in all communities, including many conservatives and people of faith, agree on this. Second, I take it that you are a Christian, and Christ advocates that we look after and give charity to the poor. If you do research into the stories of working poor people, you will find that the pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality doesn't really work for a lot of people. Government has the power, and therefore the obligation, to help these people obtain stable lives with the basic needs of human beings. If there is no empathy for lower income citizens, the private sector will not provide enough charity to help these people. The fact that you mention understanding and caring about the plight of the so-called "underclass" in such a negative light is dismaying to me, and I'd like you to elaborate further. People who favor the right to abortion like to be called pro-choice and not pro-abortion. The reason for this is that almost nobody likes abortions, and wants more of them and to use them as common birth control. Most advocates for legal abortion know that many children are being born into terrible circumstances, ending up in state systems which fail to adequately raise them, with parents that aren't theirs, or in a dumpster. Until we educate people enough to keep them from having unwanted pregnancies, proponents of legal abortion truly believe that the humane thing to do is to keep these children from entering the world. Legal abortion has lowered crime rates, as women have been able to terminate pregnancies instead of having children which are then at high risk for engaging in criminal and risky behavior. You are more than entitled to your right to disagree and to engage in dialogue, but I respect you referring to yourself as pro-life, so please respect the term pro-choice. Communists don't have a constitution, they have a manifesto, and it recommends the abolishment of religion as it considers it an opiate for the masses. Obama believes in the idea of separation of church and state based on the establishment clause in the constitution, he does not believe the phrase is actually in there.
Those are my criticisms, but thanks for your opinion!
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
Thanks for your comments.
okay, look up Patriotic or Patriotism in the dictionary. It is expression. You express yourself in many ways.. Writing, in speaking. Wearing patriotic colors, Putting your hand on your heart. Sure anyone can "Look" patriotic. Why do you bring up terrorists?
I didn't know about the lapel pin.. What I do know is that he didn't put his hand over his heart during God bless america. I found that rather odd.
I will concede that some people show patriotism more than others. I just haven't seen that in Obama. Seriously, if you could show me I will change my opinion.
Do you really believe that if he is elected he is just going to jump in and change everything? All of the supposed, perceived problems? If he is elected then I hope it can happen.
I like your title better. I just didn't think of it.
As for the 99% of credible scientists agree. Depends on who you deem credible. I have seen several credible scientists disagree on global warming. So it is a he said she said sort of game. I think it is a joke and another way to make money.
My mentality about the poor isn't the pull up by the bootstraps kind of mentality. I know what it is like to be very poor. I help the poor. I am not sitting here saying "let them eat cake" If you knew me personally you would never say that is my belief.
I believe HUGELY in charity. If this is what Obama meant by having more empathy then I misunderstood what he was saying. People who are wealthy should be stepping in to help. Unfortunately this is a very selfish culture.
Pro abortion is what it is. Pro choice. I am pro life. Is there any other term for Pro life? People just don't want to see that Pro abortion is murder no matter how you look at so you will just say it nicer so we don't have to feel so bad for killing tax payers who could have helped those who are poor but instead they are DEAD!
The hypocrisy is amazing. Don't want all the soldiers to die yet kill millions of CHILDREN every year.
About the Communists not having a constitution. Yes they do.. Look it up. China does. As,well as the former Soviet Union.
I love to debate and talk back and forth.
Thanks for writing me and lets talk more.
You are pro life, thats great.
let me explain that the differences between pro abortion and pro choice. when you are pro choice that does not mean you believe in abortion just that women should have that choice.
Liv Life Your Way
I see. Thanks for the definition. I believe it is a play on words. Either way it is condoning murder of children.
~Heather
Whether it is murder or not is debatable. I believe in the first trimester aboration when it has not fully devoloped as a fetus and is really nothing. also it is not considered a child or even alive until a mother has given birth.
Liv Life Your Way
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it :) I have an entirely different one :)
Have a good night!
Have a good night too.
but you still have not answered my question that if you support gay marriages and have empathy for the lower income then why would you list that as being one of your 12 reasons to not vote for Obama.
like i said before, that is contradicting yourself
Liv Life Your Way
I do have empathy for lower income families however it depends on what Obama means by that. If he means more taxes then I am against that.
I don't support gay marriage. I support Civil Unions.
I do have empathy for lower income families however it depends on what Obama means by that. If he means more taxes then I am against that.
Communist Nations have constitutions. Communism, the ideology, does not. Just like Capitalism does not. Nor Democracies.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
yes,you are right.
By definition, a "murder" is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." What you are doing is playing a game of semantics in order to inflame the issue by appealing to the emotions generated by the use of a term that does not apply. One could just as easily call "pro-life" something like "anti-freedom" or "pro-rape-parenting," but the ISSUE (which is in fact a matter of settled U.S. Law) is that withing certain reasonable paramaters, women do in fact have the right to make the choice to end their pregancies.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Women do have the right to make the choice to end their pregnancies. However, just because it is a law doesn't make it right!
It is a morality issue.
Just as a woman has a right to kill her child, I have the right to say I think it is wrong.
I think the point that Percivale was trying to make is that words are important because of the emotional weight they carry. He was seconding my opinion that we respect the label you have given to your views as "pro-life", and would like you to refer to ours properly as "pro-choice." We aren't fans of abortion but we see its legality as being necessary so that women have the choice. We could call your views "anti-choice", "anti-freedom", and so on, distorting your views more and more, to the point where we say that you are pro-crime, pro-misery, pro-babies-in-dumpsters. The fact of the matter is that you believe that all life should have the chance to develop, and we believe in a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy if she feels that it would be the best choice for everybody. We are not pro-abortion, we are not pro-murder. We are pro-choice.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Blog
"I'll eventually put something witty here."-Howard Watts
Thank you. I will respect what you ask. You are very kind. So is Percivale.
You guys don't have this big ol attitude. I appreciate that.
Thank you for the patriotism thing. I have a huge amount of pride for my country, but not my government. Using niteowl's logic, i am a traitor. Those are bold words bordering on fascism. I've missed your stuff on here.
Did I miss something? Or did you?
I have huge pride in my country as well. I cannot stand the government either. HOW using my logic are you a traitor?
Very confused...