Election Results

[Steele]

Are you happy? unhappy? Don't care? How did ya vote?

me I'm Happy...voted Bush/Cheney...Rossi for Gov of Wash :usa:

[Jode]

The Rossi vote is exciting, may be the 1st Republican govenor in our state in the past 20 years! I'll be watching that one.

[XRogue]

I'm happy.

[insaneferret]

turned out the way i wanted it to, glad kerry was a good sport and i dont have to listen to weeks of recount chaos again

[Steele]

yeah I am excited about Rossi too...I voted Demacrat in the last election and figured this time around we needed a change...

I thought Kerry was a good sport as well...plus SNL will be so much better with Bush as Prez:)

[Aluscia]

I'm not impressed. But, it's your country to waste I suppose. I just pray the rest of the world doesn't turn its back permanently away from the US, because if the past 4 years are any gauge... You guys are going be an island.

[Gambit]

But we're an island the rest of the world depends on, and vice versa. We'll see, I guess.

I caught a good bit of Kerry's concession speech, and thought it was done very well, for the most part. Didn't hear Bush's.

[Ghryphen]

Bush didn't have a concession speech, that is probably why you didn't hear it :rolleyes:

[Kaleban]

I'm torn. Part of me wishes Kerry was in office, to help stave off the ultra religious conservative right from legislating on every moral issue that comes up, from gay marriage and abortion to whether ducks can wear pants on Sundays (an actual law). With some of the new Republican senators, Coburn for example, and Bush not needing to be moderate at all since he can't be re-elected (although dissolving the other two branches and declaring himself Emperor is not too far fetched at this point), they're going to ramrod their point of view down every American's throat, the very sanctity of our basic rights as Americans are at stake.

On the other hand, if Kerry was in office, he'd have to deal with all the garbage Bush has gotten the country into, and would be remembered by most ignorant people as the guy who messed everything up, since Republican spin doctors are some of the best.

At least this way, Bush can be held accountable for all his mistakes, if the American media grows a backbone and starts doing its job. In my opinion, the very fact that people voted for Bush at all shows an alarming lack of political savvy, no insult intended. Look at the campaigns that were run, the reason Bush's campaign was an "attack Kerry" campaign was because for the last four years, Bush has done nothing of value for the American people. Let's see:

1. Blew through the largest budget surplus in the last 100 years halfway through his first term.

2. Lost 2 million jobs to overseas sub contracting and general economic malaise.

3. Mired the country into a war from which there is NO escape, it is not possible to win the war on terrorism because it ISN'T a war, and the other side isn't fighting it that way anyways. That's why terrorism is so effective, and the Bush presidency not only has failed to remove any significant threat against the country from power, they've made MORE enemies AND have shown more of our weaknesses to the enemy. I.e. nuclear power plants having two unarmed security guys to prevent terror?

4. Created a stupid "terror alert" system designed not to be informative, but to keep the populace in fear and apprehensive. Its a tool to make sure people don't lose "sight of the goal" any time people start doubting Bush, well lo and behold, the terror threat is Red now!! There have been many leaders throughout history that understood and even wrote about and used fear as a political tool: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Machiavelli wrote that the most effective means of population subduing was to create an environment of fear through the use of a "spectre"; an unknowable and unseen enemy that could be used as a carrot before a donkey.

Anyways, we're screwed either way, but at least Kerry wouldn't have been so brutish and thug like about it. And I absolutely cannot stand the new Bush "grin" and his beady eyes and halting method of speech. AAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!

*explodes*

/rant

[Gambit]

Gryph - I was waiting for that. Didn't have to wait long!

Kal - I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. :)

[Aluscia]

That's right, Kal... If you were working for Haliburtan (sp?) you'd be rolling in the dough overseas... Unless you got kidnapped, of course. Getting beheaded kinda sux I guess... But that's the fun of pre-emptive war, right? Except the Iraqis aren't subdued.

[SiFi]

Anyone who apposes Kalebans views on the myriad failings of bush must first face me upon the sands of the arena! I fear the next four years, I fear that bush will turn his beady little eyes north and urge his legions of rabid ultra-conservatives onwards with his completely inept speeches. The man has a room temperature IQ! Fear not, Brother Kaleban, for I shall stand with you!

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

I'd have to say that I agree with Kaleban's words. That religious input scares the bejeezus out of me.

And I'd have to say that the most important news to watch during the runup to the election was not FOX news, not CNN, not MSNBC. It was the Daily Show with John Stewart. I'm being totally honest here when I say that. You watch CNN or MSNBC and they don't have the balls to tell it like it is. You watch FOX news, and it's so propagandized, it's like I'm reading reports from the Missile Defense Agency at work detailing how well the missile defense shield works (especially since they haven't actually tested the damn thing in real conditions... and the unreal conditions the interceptors were tested in had failed about 50% of the time). I saw part of a FOX news broadcast at lunch today and they had this guy on there talking about the fact that 50% of the country voted against Bush and that he's got some mending to do. The anchor said something like, "He won the election. Shut up." I'll tell you what... I wanted to reach through the TV and knock some sense into that guy.

And John Stewart's challenge to one of the CNN news folks (hardball, anchor or something...) was pure REAL news. Stewart had the guts to call out the guy on some issues, and if you haven't seen the video of the whole thing... I highly recommend it.

I wholly agree with Kaleban's four points as well. If you read about what Bush and his Republicans have done... it's all true. (Besides... I don't think people in Nebraska have much to worry about for terror... and I'm not so sure they can spell it. <- A paraphrase of a John Stewart quote, which makes a lot of sense.)

Though I will say that Bush (and Kerry) has helped bring out more people than ever before to vote (a good thing). And that a good percentage of the Republicans in Congress who got Bush into office, will be saying things like "better get that budget under control", "better start some initiatives to get the economy going so that jobs can be created", "better figure out how to secure Iraq" (not necessarily pull troops out though... it's not something that can be done overnight without alienating the middle east). And that brings another point up... what happens to those soldiers over there that return and get discharged? They'll need jobs, and probably lots of out-counciling after fighting for such extended tours.


Then there is the whole issue of things like the Patriot Act, which sounds fine and dandy, but I think goes too far in what powers it grants the government (secret searches? secret seizures? secret arrests? etc...)


It goes on. (jobs, economy, healthcare, social security, taxes, defense spending, stupid moral things, etc.)

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

BTW, I voted for Kerry. I didn't want Bush back in office. Rumsfeld has done a somewhat ****** job of running the war in Iraq for one (planning the war was easy, staying around for reconstruction wasn't planned for).

I'm a bit sad. But crying isn't going to do anything. And also, FYI, I don't pigeon-hole myself into a particular party. I vote for who best fits what I believe and who best benefits me. I would have voted for Scharzeneggar if I had been in California back then. The man has done a tremendous job so far. And I regularly voted for Jennifer Dunn (a republican congresswoman from the district I lived in in WA state). Mrs. Dunn does a hell of a job.

[KitZune]

Everyone has heard me rant about Bush before... He's killing america, and he really doesn't care.

Bush + war + oil company + oil rich nation = Poor motherland, rich Bush.

I can smell a con-deal like this a mile away

[Steele]

LOL...Canadians really give a hoot aboot American Politics, Eh?

[SiFi]

We should: Us and Mexico are two really close possible targets that share land borders with you guys, though bush proved that he wasn't averse to starting a war overseas based on false principals. I wouldn't be surprised (ok, I would, but I'm ranting here) if bush invaded Mexico to stop the flood of illegal immigrants that are "stealing the nations jobs!"

[Aluscia]

lol.... no, he'd have to invade Vietnam and Taiwan and China to do that :P

[Gambit]

Ok, ok. Time to step in, I see.

Apparently I must remind you that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, nearly everyone thought Saddam had WMD? Including Kerry, and other Dems, all of whom urged action. Including France, Germany, etc. A pre-emptive strike was not necessarily the first choice of action for most, but if Bush truly believed that Saddam had 'em, and was indeed willing to supply terrorists with them to use on our soil, it's tough to fault. The 9-11 commission found that the intelligence services had not been doing an optimum job - like it took a commission... And Bush didn't just jump in, either. Remember that Iraq had still never complied with many of the conditions it agreed to in order to end the Gulf war in the first place! He made his case to the other nations, and what did they want to do? More of the same things that had been done for the last ten years and apparently not worked. Mind you, I'm certainly not happy with the war or the way things are going over there now, but here we are.

Regards the economy, let's also not forget that the internet bubble burst several month prior to Bush winning the election or taking office. The globalization of the workforce is inevitible given the level of technology we've reached. Why do American companies use overseas workers? Because they're cheaper than American ones! Why are they cheaper? Might it have to do with onerous employee regulations, which do indeed benefit the American worker but also push up domestic labor costs. A publicly-held for-profit company has an obligation to maximize profit for stockholders. I'm not really happy about this, either, being an American worker whose job can be outsourced, but that's the way capitalism works. Working for an international corporation is not the only means of making a living.

This is oversimplification, of course, but the Democrats sell a vision where everyone is taken care of by the government. The Republicans sell a vision where you can darn well keep what's yours. Neither is accurate, and there are attractive things about both, but I obviously swing a bit more to the right. :)

How much to you Canadians pay in taxes? You all get free health care for that, right? So why do so many of you come south for medical treatment?

[Aluscia]

Umm... I seem to remember the UN being against action vs Iraq. But of course, those guys who are devoted to peace know nothing.... unless of course, you mean they were right. I'm just waiting for their search for WMDs to end up at the Oval Office.

*CLICKCLICKCLICK* "Sir, the Geiger counter is going mad!"
"That's right... it's Bush fingering that trigger again"

As far as our health system is concerned, people head south because they have money. Because the quality and speed of Health Care in the US is decided by wealth, it is a lot easier to just pay for the service than wait for it for free. It's not as if we don't have the services ourselves.

[Steele]

ROFLMAO...is it hot in here?...so uh...how 'bout them Red Sox?

[KitZune]

I hate arguing about Politics... this thread should be moved to the bitch pit or something... I usually ignore the bitch pit ; P

[SiFi]

I second the motion.

[sh@rp]

:p :D :D :D :D :D :nerd: :evil :usa: :) well if you didnt understand my random smiley thing im happy bush won :-P

[Kaleban]

Well, I'd like to follow up comment here. And I'm not arguing with anyone, even Gambit, I'm just posting my opinions, for what they're worth. I could be a moron and wrong, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Prior to Iraq, everyone did think Saddam had WMDs, true. But what do you think would happen if Hans Blix came knocking on the Oval Office door with the same demands and questions, since the USA is part of the U.N.?

Probably would have been fed to the sharks... ;-)

The WMD argument doesn't hold water either for the simple fact that North Korea is KNOWN to have them, and has been recorded as being ready and able to use them, and yet, I see no naval battle groups anchoring offshore to start air riads into Pyongyang! And since WMDs can be any type of Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, there are hundreds of groups with access to these weapons. The entire argument was based off the hunt for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin-Laden, and yet we're entrenched in urban guerilla warfare with a under-prepared and under staffed ground force, trying to do nation building with one fifth of what was recommended by several Joint Chiefs! And still no admission of a mistake from ANY Republican.

The reason many other countries at the UN were voting for trade embargoes and other alternatives to war is because they KNEW what trying to invade and democratize the Middle East would cost, and are probably still laughing behind cupped hands at the folly of the Bush administration. The whole concept of bringing Democracy to the Middle East is noble, but that's NOT why we're there. Its for profiteering basically, and knowing that the American public (or at least a big enough voting bloc) can be fooled by Fox News.

The other folly in democratization is that Iraqis are NOT Christians, nor Americans. Their whole culture, from religion to government, is strictly rooted in Islam, which, while basically a peaceful religion, has its fanatics just like Christianity. Islam is very patriarchal, so most Moslems are raised in a society that encourages fealty to those in power above you. The Iraqis themselves may not want democracy, but the imperialists in our government don't care about that. They want guaranteed oil, profits and the ability to establish a permanent military installation and America friendly government in the middle of an area known for its hatred of American decadence.

So to conclude, pre-emptive war is stupid. As we will see, probably over the next decade, I have no illusions that Bush or those he surrounds himself with have the intelligence or savvy to end this in four years. And when it does finally end? There will be more people who hate America than ever before, and Americans both domestic and abroad will be in more danger than ever before.

P.S. And as to the business comment. Businesses are held to employee regulations, yes, but if they outsource to another country, why are those regulations not followed. Just like an embassy, an Indian computer programmer should be paid the same as if he WERE in the USA. The government allows corporations to outsource to 3rd world nations for cheap labor because those same corporations PUT those politicians where they are, and so the politician on a string cannot risk alienating his constituents (read: NOT the voters, no one cares about them anymore) or he can't get re-elected to further line his pockets. Government in America is just as much a business as any other large corporation, and Americans fool themselves if they think the government works for them any more. Truly sad.

[SiFi]

Go Kaleban!

[Stang]

Right on brotha!

[Gambit]

*rolls up sleeves*

Before I begin, I wish two points noted. 1) I didn't start the politicking. 2) How can you realistically expect a politically titled thread ("election results") not to contain some politics? :)

I shall not rebut sentence by sentence, but point by point. It'll save at least a little space...

A) You being a moron - I have no evidence for that, and the fact that you write intellegently argues against it. I shall refrain from getting personal and trust you'll do the same.

B) US getting inspected: The US hasn't violated what, a hundred-something UN resolutions? We've not used any WMDs since Nagasaki, as opposed to Saddam who had a long history of depending on them to fight Iran, Kurds, and whomever else he felt like. As a matter of fact, IIRC, the US does (or did) submit to some sort of inspections during the cold war in the interest of toning down nuke fever.

C) WMD & N. Korea - They're very insular. No reason to suspect that they're supplying anyone anything. And we don't know they have nukes yet, though I do agree with you we ought to do something about their obvious capability and will to develop and use such. They've not broken UN treaties, except the nuke development one. The fact that Al Queda and Iran are both muslim, and almost all international terrorists are muslim, probably helped, rightly or wrongly. I will note a difference in motives, however. Saddam wanted to intimidate his neighbors (Iran), and had demonstrated that he would invade them given the opportunity. Kim Jong Il (is that correct) is seeking attention. He's jumping up and down, yelling "look at me, everybody!" I won't pretend to analyze his mind - what I've read of him is obviously twisted - but there is a notable difference there. They're both pretty brutal.

D) embargoes/democracy in M.E. Well, the embargoes were apparently not doing much. Now that we're in there, it's obvious they were hurting, but towards then end Saddam had also figured out ways around them, and they'd have been a complete joke in another year or two. As far as being there for profiteering -- I strongly, sincerely doubt that's the reason for the war. Are there opportunists out there? Yup. Do powerful people cooperate with them when they really shouldn't? Yup. Do either of us know what's going on in people's heads when we only see them on the news? Nope. Please don't state your speculation about other's motives as fact. For the record, I think the motive of "bringing democracy" doesn't hold much water either.

E) Fox news(subitem): You know why people like Fox? Because they're tired of major news sources that swing so far to the left. There needs to be some right-wing flavor to balance. If things swing too far to the right, there'll be a similar backlash to the left. Happened before (1960s), will happen again.

D) Iraq Muslim/Christian/democracy. Fact: There are over 2.5 million professing Christians in Iraq today. (http://www.assyrianchristians.com/ is one source.) And in a Muslim country, to be a professing Christian is a lot more meaningful than in the US. The common person in Iraq today is skeptical, but hopeful. Two years ago "hope" wasn't in the picture. You hear about the harm US has done there, but you should also be aware of the good being done. You don't hear squat of THAT on mainstream media - see the aforementioned leftist slant. As far as "what the Iraqis want" - refer to above comment regarding assignation of motive. Strictly militarily, having a strong US presence in the M.E. is a brilliant strategic move. It's already toned down a lot of rhetoric from Syria and Iran. Though I admit the methods of getting there have been quite a bit below optimal.

E) You're going to gripe at Bush for trying to get out of Iraq within four years? Isn't that part of the platform Kerry was running on? Also, don't you think we'd get some scorn for not finishing what we start, and leaving the country in a shambles to tear itself apart?

F) The anti-American sentiment has been building for much more than four years. Current events have brought it to a head, but Dem and Rep administrations have done their part to create, ignore, and feed the beast. Hollywood helped, too.

G) Business/economics: (As an aside, it's the unions, who support the Dems, that made it so tough to hire people in the US. I agree that they are needed, to a point, but they've gone well beyond that.) If the US were to make a law that said US corps have to pay US wages to its workers no matter where they are, the corps would leave the US. If the law said that only goods which were made in the USA could be sold in the USA, other countries wouldn't buy our stuff, either. Happens all the time.
Business follows profit, and creates Jobs, which are filled by consumers who spend the money, and the government takes its slice every step of the way. Democratic (system, not party) politics follows the voters, who tend to vote their pocketbook. The taxes pull the whole economy down, since they're felt in so many different places but ultimately fall on the consumer. (When you tax a business, it has to raise its prices or lower its wages.)

If American workers want to keep jobs in America, they HAVE to buy American-made goods and services. American companies have been telling us that for years! But those Korean-made cars and Tiawanese computers and Japanese stereos are so much cheaper than their domestic counterpart that hard-working Joe American picks them instead. It's simple economics. As it becomes more convenient to ship goods and travel and communicate with people in other countries (and who doesn't like convenience?), economic barriers fall and it becomes easier to equalize those markets in nearly every respect. Goods, services, employees, everything. It will all balance out eventually, but as long as there are sharp divides between economic systems, there will be this kind of turmoil. The US will be lowering its standard of living relative to the rest of the world, one way or another, as will other "wealthy" countries.

Do you know what has been supplying the growth for the world's economic engine prior to now? Frontierism. Columbus' "New World" is one example of that. It's someplace where "civilization" isn't, however you want to term it. To the Europeans of that era it was America. Prior to that it was the Orient (conversely, from the Orient it was Europe...). Africa has been there at both ends (say Egypt), as has India, the M.E., etc. One problem with our economic system is that we're out of frontiers, at least until we extend our economics into space. So, now that faraway places are becoming more and more "local," the spikes are going to level out a bit. Any country that tries to stop this progress will get left behind - that's how the M.E. went from being a shining star of culture and science to its current state of stagnation. Ideally, economics should be a mix of market-driven and planning. Unfortunately, the market is usually much better at handling things than any government has ever demonstrated its ability to plan, so I'm an avowed capitalist - though I'll allow that a little wise regulation is a good thing.


Final note, non-party oriented: If there was such things as altruistic politicians, could we recognize them? Or would cynics of the other side always tear them up?

[Steele]

Good Post Gambit...

This is an interesting read...by a Brit...http://www.hacer.org/current/US128.php

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Gambit's C, first D, second D, first E, and G:

C: N Korea is suspected of having at least a half dozen fission weapons. And the reasoning for that is in part on how far along their known research efforts were, and on the types of missiles they've been testing (Long March II, and so on...) Chances are that N. Korea has nukes. And chances are that Kim Jong Il is going to still run his country into the ground to produce more of them. And it's a tossup on whether China really can control N. Korea as well as it thinks it can. On the one hand, they've got the troops to invade and force N. Korea to stand down if necessary. On the other, N. Korea is so well isolated from other nations, except China, that it's possible that they'll do something, the US and S. Korea will respond, and China will step in to back up their ally (N. Korea). Then Nato countries will get involved, especially Britain, and you've got a big mess that's hard to back down from. N. Korea definitely has the launch capability to put nukes into the Seoul Hilton.

first D: We have to remember that Russia, France, and wealthy arabs were supporting Iraq. What better way to do operation testing of weapons for France and Russia, than in a real environment against the threats they were meant to counter? And wealthy arabs will more than likely give money to those in need (islam requires it of all muslims, IIRC).

second D: EVERYONE forgets that Osama bin Laden's group are religious fanatics at their core. You can't treat religious zealots the same way you treat terrorists. Terrorists are in it for money, power, release of other terrorists, etc. Religious fanatics are in it to either impose their religion or to silence those that speak out against their reiligious beliefs. Of the two, I would say that religious fanaticism is more significant because faith can create very strong emotions, and give rise to very strong beliefs. Especially when those beliefs and emotions are being shaped by people who have a goal such as the destruction of America.

I can see why government officials (I'm speaking in a non-official capicity here ;) ), say that the enemy are terrorists instead of religious fanatics. If they state that religion is the root of why they're fighting us, then ALL muslims become the enemy... the common, Joe American won't see the difference. I can see why it's done this way, but I don't agree with it and it allows people to draw false conclusions. It keeps the higher ups at the pentagon from realizing that they're ultimately fighting religious warriors... though I think this is changing.

first E: The whole FOX news thing just gets me for one reason: they don't allow non-FOX news viewpoints without a counter-argument that's laced with scorn. I don't mind the fact that they lean more towards the right than CNN and MSNBC and others. In fact, I am a HUGE fan of that kind of diversity. I am NOT, however, a fan of the way those right-leaning views are presented. It's propaganda, Gambit. Plain and simple. (Though I will say that I like to watch it at times because their news-women are generally more attractive. ;) )

G: Well, the world economy isn't as much of a free-market as your statements would imply, Gambit. It's more of a regulated-free-market than anything else. A prime example of this would be China. The Chinese government won't release its currency from specific numbers that their government derived. Those numbers don't accurately reflect the health of the Chinese economy, and it forces foreign goods to come in at dramatically lower prices than they otherwise would be. Chinese currency is held at a certain value regulated by the Chinese central bank, and that fixes the conversion between dollars and... Chinese dollars (?). That means that even though the US economy reacts to world conditions, and the prices for some things will go up or down, it's always going to cost the same in China. Say MS office (legal versions): 100 dollars in the US; 20 dollars in China.... and when the US economy changes: 150 dollars in the US; 20 dollars in China. This situation is only good for China; the US doesn't benefit other than it gets a trading partner.



As for the Iraq war in general: I think it was a good thing that Saddam got removed. I think it was a horrible thing to justify it on false pretenses (WMDs)... everyone thought Iraq had them, but that was based on poor evidence and in a couple of cases, outright lies.

The whole point of Kerry's "test" was to say to our friends, "Hey... we think Iraq has WMDs. What does your intel say? How confident in that are you?" then take what they say and analyze it and see how it fits with our data. It's not a "permission slip" to do anything... it's a double-check to make sure we don't look like dumbasses. Had someone done that, we would not have used WMDs as the pretense for the war. We may have still gone to war... but justified on different, more truthful reasons.



Personally, I think the bin Laden is either hiding out in Pakistan/Afghanistan, or hiding out in Iran. I say Iran because the government there is not friendly towards the US, and it's based heavily on religion. That's two key things for bin Laden's group.

[Gambit]

But N Korea HASN'T done anything overtly aggressive yet (threatening, yes). Saddam had. I'm not excusing, I'm just trying to work out the logic.

Bin Laden/muslim : I don't. However, you have to ask yourself if the leadership (bin Laden) really feels this religious conviction or if he instills it in his followers to service his own ends. Same as with any religious leader.

Fox: As more right-leaning news outlets come on-line, the better ones will take viewers and/or respect from the worse ones. Fox may become the "Inquirer" of these, or it may adjust its tactics. My point is that people go there because they think it's better than the alternative, or just want a different point of view - which Fox is happy to supply, propaganda or not.

World/Free market : Agreed, it's not there yet. My point was merely that it's spreading, and this change is the source of the turmoil. Anyway, China is one country - nearly all the world pays labor less than the US.

Kerry's test - We did that. The Brits apparantly fed us a line that agreed with ours. Most everyone else was inconclusive, IIRC, with few to none in both the trusted category with a "definitely not" response. A false pretense means that the wrong decision was made knowingly and that an excuse was offered to justify it which was known to be false at the time. What the commission found was that the intel services supplied bad information. Tough to make a good decision on bad information. Perhaps Bush is a bald-faced liar. Perhaps he just showed poor judgement Perhaps he made the best decision anyone could make given the information he had. I don't know, and neither do you. Somebody does, and their story probably is out there, but which one is it?

BTW, China announced a couple weeks ago that they're not going to regulate their yuan vs our dollar like they have. Significant concession. They also happen to be the largest single (foreign?) consumer of American steel at the moment.

[Gambit]

(Oh, and wow, that's some article, Steele. Thanks!)

[Kaleban]

Well, I submit that Iraq hadn't done anything overtly aggressive since the end of Desert Storm, oh about a decade ago.

Face it, the ousting of Saddam and establishing an American friendly puppet in the Middle East has been a big part of the American political agenda (mostly Republican but several Democrats) for the last 20 years, you can find articles about it at the CIA website that have been declassified.

Regardless of what reasons the administration gave you, I based my voting for Kerry on one simple comparison:

Bush is a KNOWN failure, who as I mentioned in my first post has done nothing but screw up for the last four years. Kerry is an unknown quantity who the Bush campaign tried to paint as the incumbent. Remember, not once did the Bush campaign run on his record, because it stinks. Heck, out of the first nine months in office, Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation!

So my choice was clear, vote in a guaranteed failure, or gamble on someone who might not fail, but if he did, could not possibly do any worse than Bush.

Besides, a lot of the "facts" we're arguing are mostly opinion anyways, hence my "moron/salt" disclaimer! ;)

And remember this, many veterans denounced the swift boat ads and such targeting Kerry, calling the ads "irresponsible", "idiotic", "bald faced lies" etc, etc. Yet many people believed them. I find it highly ironic that the only candidate with NO real Vietnam war experience has repeated the mistake of the past by embroiling this country in a war which will no doubt have the same resolution, pulling out in ten years leaving the place decimated and in a shambles, with some vague apologies and no economic reparations. A shame really, I know plenty of people from Vietnam, from when I LIVED there, as well as Saudi Arabia, and both Moslems and Vietnamese are perfectly decent, well mannered, if a little poor people. No wonder they hate arrogant, loud, decadent, imperialistic, over commercialized, capitalist America. I'm starting to as well.

[Gambit]

Hmm... Firing weapons at planes isn't overtly aggressive? I seem to recall quite a bit of that going on.

I don't doubt the M.E. thing. Militarily, we need a presence there, as I said.

Kerry's voting record in the Senate is indeed a known quantity. You can examine his record in that respect for yourself. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

No economic reparations - well, we're making a massive investment in the Iraqi infrastructure, if nothing else. Of course we'd like to buy their oil - but if they want to sell and we give 'em a fair price, they're way better off than they were.

Can't really argue the swift boat ads. :( Dems did fire a few salvos of that sort of their own, as I recall, but swift boat did strike the first blow in that respect.

End of our actions in Iraq - and how exactly was Kerry planning to clean it up? He never did make that clear. Neither did Bush. It's a complicated situation, everyone here and abroad wants us out, but there's no good way to do it at this point. The US will get plenty of blame no matter what, so we might as well try to do the best we can.

If a citizen is unhappy with the direction the country is headed, they are empowered to either work to improve it or they have the freedom to leave - unlike many other countries where there is no such freedom. Too many people do neither and just sit around complaining, which helps no one. Many such don't even vote, or don't take the time to research a few facts about the candidates, though you're obviously not one of them. :)

[Cerberus]

Kerry is a pro-partial birth abortion, voted against every military program or vehicle that we are CURRENTLY using in Iraq, has absolutely no religious morals despite what he says. So if the US remains an Island, at least we'll be on the right Island, while the rest of the world is lost in a sea of declining morals. I voted for Bush and for Rossi.

[SiFi]

Morals are not exclusive to those of you who are religious. Considering the history of Cristianity/Catholicism and their various splinters, that might be a good thing. To be fair, many modern day churches are paragons of virtue, that want to help their communities, and succeed at doing so. My problem is with the mixing of church and state, and the corruption of both. On it's own, religion can be a good thing (despite my own views on it); providing peace of mind and unity of spirit to people. On it's own government can be a good thing, guiding nations through these troubled times. The problem with mixing them is that priests become corrupt and poiliticians become puppets. You can keep you fundamentalist "morals," and stay in the 20th century, and the rest of the world will move on.

[Kaleban]

If an Iraqi MiG-21 buzzed anywhere near Washington D.C., what do you think would happen? KABOOM! Plane shot down. Firing missiles at foreign military aircraft flying near your capital city is not a terrorist attack, nor aggressive, it is a defensive measure. This is the second time we've attacked them, admittedly the first was to help out a fringe ally (Kuwait) but the second was unprovoked and totally unwarranted.

And while we are investing in the re-building of Iraq, its been stated by both political parties that a drawn out Iraqi conflict will gain nothing for the citizens of Iraq, and will take decades for even maximum oil output to repay what the USA has invested to this point in time. Ten or more years down the road, and all the oil they have won't pay it back. Remember, after a year and a half AFTER Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" we've spent over $200 BILLION in Iraq...

I agree that currently, the USA has many freedoms that other countries do not enjoy, however with an all-Republican government, with many extreme conservative Christians in office, I have a feeling that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the new targets of the updated and improved Patriot Act. While I would say I find partial birth abortion very distasteful and is something to be avoided if possible, what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority. One person's morals do not (or should not) dictate what every other person in a country as diverse as the USA should follow, but the government under Republicans and Christians sure are trying hard.

I mean, how many states took a vote on gay marriage right after November 2nd? 11, 12? And half passed or something like that? As our founding fathers said (who, by the way were even more hard-line religious Puritans, but were wise enough to realize not everyone else was) separation of church and state are of paramount concern.

I seriously doubt that Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, etc., etc. share the same moral or religious values that the Christian Coalition espouse, and it will be a sad day indeed when our society looks like something out of John Carpenter's Escape From New York/L.A. movies...

/rant

P.S. Look at morals like this (in my opinion):

Clinton got a BJ in office, and was impeached. The Republicans went at him from every angle on Whitewater, never proved anything, and used a frivolous and trumped up sexual harrassment case to take him down, because he wasn't killing towel-heads and spending money like water.

Bush currently has gotten over 1000 U.S. soldiers killed for what many think is a useless or at least misguided war. And the body count rises daily, with no clear plan from our current administration (Bush, being Commander in Chief is the one who must take responsibility).

If, in the end its found that Bush collaborated with the Saudis, that Cheney is in it for Halliburton, and even IF these rumours are proven unfounded, who has caused the greater pain to the office of the President, and the Nation as a whole? I know who I'd say.

[SiFi]

Know what? I'm just going to stop trying to make points. Kaleban makes them so much better.

[Aluscia]

I am a Christian. I am a Socialist (leaning hard left, but quite moderate in a lot of ways... Think post-WWII Britain). I hate Capitalism. Unfortunately, I have to survive in a predomiantly capitalist West so I turn a blind eye to a lot that goes on, mark my ballot every election for the NDP (the only left in Canada that ever has a chance of making a difference), and cry bitter tears when the government of Canada (Right now, the Liberals), which purported itself as a neither left-nor-right leaning governing body, and had governed by default for over a decade (The anti-Progressive Conservative (Mulroney) motion was so violent, it was only this past election that we are recovering our ability to look at alternatives), makes decisions that seem to only take the right into consideration. While we are definitely more moderate than the US in a lot of political ways, the current government in power is taking us in a direction I don't necessarily agree with.

My reason for being so anti-Bush is a very simple bible quote (although, admittedly, I don't remember which gospel it is from): "How can you presume to take dust out of another's eye with a log stuck in your own?" His lack of a "big picture", or perhaps even more specifically, a big picture omitting a lot of colours/parts with a giant Red White and Blue flag in the middle of it, scares me significantly. He is an incredible *reactive* leader. If Al Gore had been in office, the response to 9/11 probably wouldn't have been enough. There might not have been a response at all. So, I will give Bush that credit. But he didn't stop! He should have cleaned out Afghanistan (since they declared Jihad against the US), empowered the FBI/struck a new body to find Osama etc., and concentrate on working with the world to bolster themselves from threats of terrorism. However, Bush went further. He decided to act on old, inaccurate information to muster the world's forces to rid Iraq of a despot. Despite the fact that world has countless other despots, some of which who perform even worse atrocities on their own people. Despite the fact that many of America's friends were not showing support for the war (then again, they just slandered the **** out of all the countries that declined/opposed so I don't think they can be classified as friends). Despite the fact that Canada did not show support for the war (for which I am glad. Many right-wingers screamed bloody murder at our PM Jean Chretien, claiming we were turning our back on a "righteous war"... look at how righteous it has become). Despite the fact that trade embargos had already decimated and demoralized the population of Iraq. Despite the lack of understanding that every government has supporters, or else it wouldn't be in power. Essentially, what Bush did was declare war on a country that had a government he didn't like under the pretenses of stopping them from harnessing WMDs and harbouring terrorists (neither of which have surfaced, really) and establishing a beautiful democracy that the West could be proud of.

The results of the war are ongoing history. I don't need to post a tally of Casualties, because it will be inaccurate regardless. What I really want to see is a comparison of how many Americans (not counting the foreigners) died in the 9/11 attacks and how many Americans have died in the war on Iraq. It would be interesting to see, because if the numbers are as close as I think they are, then the Bush administration is actually guilty of worse crimes than Osama himself! I won't presume to make that accusation however... It's obvious that the voting public of the US didn't care. They like feeling safe; the insular feeling of rabid protection of "morals", the great security of a national "terror alert" system, the stringent immigration policies and checks in place at PoEs, the development of the Star Wars missile defense shield. All of these factors lead to a safe and sound homeland.
The thing I don't understand is why more nations that are in the West don't esperience the same problems with terrorism that the US does. I'm not in fear at all of a terrorist attack on my person, my city, my province, or even my country. Similarly, much of Europe feels this way. Why? I can think of a number of reasons, but none of them are complete. The biggest reason, I feel, is that America simply has no room for broadening of its own cultural identity. The past exploits and wars of America are simply still too fresh to abandon the idolistic worship of them, and thus foreigners who come to "the land of promise" can only be integrated if they abandon their own pasts and join in the frenzied orgy of warmongering. It exists on so many levels too, from sports team competition to road rage to gang violence to political races to... eventually down to the very conept of Capitalism itself, which is the freedom for an individual to rise above any other in standing (however that is measured, by influence/money/property/wives etc). The problem with it now is that America sees it as a right to push everything else out of the way so they are "America: Biggest and Best". taking the indivudal struggles of capitalism to the macro level of nation state governance.

Pulling in my last beef with Bush, the pretense of religion. As I stated at the beginning, I am a Christian. Avowedly, I am not perfect, nor will I ever be close. I don't strive for perfection, I don't want to be a saint, and in fact, I don't even really like evangelizing. I firmly believe in the bible as a guide, and yet, I also firmly believe in its antiquity. I don't, however, view it as a play book on how society should be run (with the sole exception of the words of Christ himself, which I also strive to make my guide). I don't like how so many people throw crazy ass bible quotes out to justify action that is "moralistic". As I said, I am a Christian... I'm also gay. In a lot of branches of Christianity, this would pose a serious conflict between my spirit and my sexuality. However, using Christ's own abolition of the ways of the Pharisees, who followed Levittacus/Deuteronomy to the letter, and his 2 simple commandments of loving each other and loving God as we love ourselves, I think I'm carving out a pretty decent and holy lifestyle. Nowhere in Christ's words exists the right of some to step in and remove choice from others, on any scale. That includes that abolition of same-sex marriages, the abolition of abortion, the rigid control of stem cell research, the invasion and conversion of other countries/religions by the sword, or the squelching of difference in opinion by a leader who purports himself as a "Christian".
Essentially, I dislike and am afraid of another Bush mandate because it takes my core being as a Christian, twists it around, and puts it on display for everyone else to see its misplaced pride in "morals". Is it any wonder that other religions look at Christianity as a threat, instead of as a way of peace and harmony?

I apologize for being rabid in my own views. I love you all a lot, but I find it very frustrating when I see someone who is an enemy of peace in the world come to power for the second time. I find it even more frustrating that it seems people are duped by his "strengths" enough to completely forget his "faults". That said, I pray for a safer and better world, regardless of what mischief Bush may put it up to.

[Gambit]

Kal,

Planes shot at were in the "no-fly zones", there to make sure Saddam didn't slaughter more Kurds like he did every chance he got. They were NOT flying near/over Bagdad. Second time we've attacked them? Some figure it as an extension of the first, which was only interrrupted because Saddam granted certain concessions (was one of those the no-fly zones?) *which* *he* *never* *fulfilled*.

If all the oil Iraq makes for ten years won't pay us back, doesn't that kind of deflate the "blood for oil" argument?

"what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority" -- WHAT? You want IMMORAL laws and judges? No thanks.

FYI, in EVERY state that proposed banning gay marriage, the proposal passed by a significant margin. In Oregon, where the pro-gay movement concentrated hardest and thought they had the best chance of winning, spending millions of dollars on their campaign, it still passed by (I think) 67%. Mississippi was the stronges, at >85%.

Those same founding fathers you mention ALL publicly stated or wrote that the Bible should be taught in school. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were atheist, but all knew the value of the morality taught within. And you're certainly correct in saying that other cultures do not share the same moral codes as traditional American Judeo-Christian values. But something about this country must be better, because they came here. You don't see mass numbers of people running away from the US to go live in China or India or Africa or anywhere else. Those traditional values shaped the system these people want.

Dude, Clinton lied under oath. And admitted it. People go to jail for that, y'know. There's a lot shady about the Clintons. I met the man, and talked to plenty of people who know him personally and knew of his activities firsthand, before I cared much about politics. I can honestly say they don't call him "Slick Willy" for nothing.


Laur,

I sure don't like the way things went in the international community. I do wish it had gone better, for many reasons. I wish we'd had the right information, but what we had was what we had and we couldn't get any more updated info because Saddam just wasn't cooperating. If he didn't wan't folks messing around with his palaces he should have stayed out of Kuwait.
Isn't it true that sometimes you have to stand alone for something you believe in? What if the folks at the top honestly and sincerely believed there was a specific and serious sort of terrorist danger there? Some folks would have gone in immediately, guns blazing, and taken care of the situation. Would you want a leader who did nothing at all when faced with such reported danger? There were months where we tried to show other nations what was there, not to mention find more/better intel. Even then, Saddam could have let the inspectors in, but didn't.

Other western nations & terrorism: You're not afraid for your city. Congratulations, and you're welcome.
Ask Spain what terrorism has done for them.
Of course Saddam had supporters. They were a band of thugs. Saddam worked as an assassin, and rose to power by fear of execution and greed. In any group of people of sufficient size, there will be people who stand by what they believe, and people who will do anything to get what they want. Which group supports whom?

You say you're a Christian. You say you believe in the Bible as a guide, but you "believe in its antiquity." In the context, I think you're implying it's outdated. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Christ said love God first, with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Then, love others as you love yourself. Also, he said, if you love Me, keep My commandments. He also said that the old Mosaic law (which the leaders of the time had taken entirely too far and replaced worship with tradition) was not superseded by his words and would not pass away until heaven and earth do. There's much more in the Law than the "ten commandments," but let's take those for a start. Love God: covered that. Don't worship idols: Well, we don't do that explicitly, but our actions betray us sometimes. Don't murder: ok, we have a law against that. Don't steal: ok, got that too. Don't lie: Hmm.. No law there, except under oath. Don't commit adultery: no law there, either. (Can we define adultery as "sex outside of marriage," just for clarity?) Don't covet stuff that doesn't belong to you: no laws, again, because men can't get inside other men's heads.

I will be frank. I have serious problems with homosexuality. Not the people, the practice. I also have problems when people say they're gay, but they're Christian, but Christ says we're to love each other anyway and wave that around as an excuse. True, He said that, but He also said "Go, and sin no more!" FWIW, I feel very much the same way about heteros who sleep around and make the same claim, so it's not just homophobia. :) Or liars, or theives, or whatever. It's hypocritical.
Let me insert here and say that I sin, and frequently. But it's wrong, I acknowlege that it's wrong, and I want to stop doing it. That sin hurts me and it hurts those around me, whom I love. Yes, I'm hypocritical too. I have a log in my eye, and cannot condemn you or anyone else. Jesus said he didn't come to condemn anyone. When He returns, though, it will be as our judge.

That Law that I spoke of is there not just as a guide to life, but to show us how we fail to measure up. No one can honestly live it out - but Christ did. Faith in Him saves us, but that faith requires repentence. If you don't admit to your own sin and turn away from it, then you aren't acknowledging that you need Him.


==========================
Whee, now that we've well and truly mixed religion and politics in the same post, I have one final monkey wrench to throw:

I don't know how he voted in the last,or any, election, but a few years ago Billy Graham publicly stated he's a democrat. ;)

[SiFi]

It is at this point that I'm going to bow out of any active participation in this debate (such as it was), as it is moving beyond the scope of my knowledge. I will continue to watch, and continue to support Laurelin with whatever aid I can give. Other than that, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't devolved into a flame war, though that may be just an impression that I get from reading other, less mature forums. I'm VERY imnpressed with the maturity and restraint shown by everyone in this debate, and while everyone rants, no one's an ass about it.

I am so very glad that I'm applying to this clan instead of another.

[Aluscia]

Gamb, I will sum my feelings up simply: If God did not make me exactly as I am, homosexuality and all, then I will go to hell because he is not the God I believe in. While I understand your feelings (I've had to listen to my mother's Christian radio shows from the States talking about converting gays from lives of "sin", and being told "I'm glad no one in our family is sick like [the gays]."), I don't share them (obviously). To be lumped in with adulterers as a similar sexual sin is... wrong. Adultery is in the 10 commandments (along with thievery, murder, and a whole bunch of other big list criminalities), while Homosexuality shows up in the same chapter that includes not planting more than one crop in one field (goodbye engineered crops), Not wearing clothing of two different types of material (goodbye cotton blends), and taking slaves of only other nations (goodbye emancipation proclamation). I firmly believe all of these laws were created to save the tribes of Israel from themselves, moving them away from things with dangerous outcomes *or* things that would reduce the number of functioning members in society. So why, given what you said about these laws being in place until the end of this world, do we mix crops and materials? Why do eat non-kosher foods, and do all sorts of things that would make us "unclean" and then go to church? Because we find those laws no longer apply, because they're less important. They're inconvenient. And yet, why should any other law be less important? Is it our place to decide which laws to break and which to follow? That said, I don't really mind that you're against homosexuality. I just don't understand the biblical argument because it just doesn't add up. Even if you use the easiest story from the Bible (Sodom & Gomorrah), the sins for which the cities were destroyed was not predominant homosexuality: It was rape, and thievery, and the fact that they accosted an angel of God sent to determine the cities' legitimacy. If anything, that story was only included to explain why Lot's daughters had to commit incest.

As far as what I said about the 'antiquity' of the bible, you got the right impression. It is outdated for exactly the reasons I listed above.

[Kaleban]

Gambit, I'm gonna quote you on a few things, but just to crystallize my own points, not to mock you or anything.

Kal,

Planes shot at were in the "no-fly zones", there to make sure Saddam didn't slaughter more Kurds like he did every chance he got. They were NOT flying near/over Bagdad. Second time we've attacked them? Some figure it as an extension of the first, which was only interrrupted because Saddam granted certain concessions (was one of those the no-fly zones?) *which* *he* *never* *fulfilled*.

The capitol thing was just an example. If Iraqi MiG-21s flew over ANY American territory, what would our response be? Simple. KABOOM! Just as we would, Saddam was defending his country. Whether we think its right or not, every country has the right to defend itself, I find it highly amusing that Iraqis, in their own country, fighting against a foreign aggressor, are labeled as "terrorists." They're "defenders" actually. Regardless of what FOX News or the Republicans would have you believe, MANY Iraqis are fighting because of their beliefs, not due to some masochistic suicidal terroristic behaviour. If America were invaded to "liberate" us from Bush, don't you think a good number of people would fight back, even if others told them it was a bad idea? The Iraqi defenders are simply Moslem Republicans in a funny way. But history is very simple, the victors write the books, and get to call whomever they conquered whatever they wish.

If all the oil Iraq makes for ten years won't pay us back, doesn't that kind of deflate the "blood for oil" argument?

The FOOD for oil program was established to give the starving masses a shot at food, without the government stepping in to "tax" the relief aid. And the FOOD for oil program was established I believe by the UN, and while not perfect, it certainly was more effective at feeding the poor than a Mk. 82 Snakeye dropped through a front door!

"what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority" -- WHAT? You want IMMORAL laws and judges? No thanks.

No, you missed my point. I don't want morality brought into the government at all. Lack of morals in the judicial system does not make for immoral judges, it makes for impartiality. I don't want some fire and brimstone judge handing down crucifixion sentences for loitering, as I don't want some pot-smoking hippie judge letting everyone go while he takes another hit off his bong. I want a system where laws and judgements are made to suit the issues at hand. What is wrong with gay marriage? It affects no one but the couple being married. All the perceived "opening doors" BS is just that, BS. If that were the case, marriage itself is "opening a door" to marriage between a man and a woman, a woman and her dog, a man and his plant, etc., etc. Rediculous, but the same argument is what is used to eliminate the possibility of gay marriage. IMHO, the state and feds should eliminate marriage from their vocabulary, and only provide civil unions, leaving marriage to the province of religion. So ANY union, whether it is hetero, gay or otherwise confers the same legal benefits, but only hetero gets to do it in a church.

FYI, in EVERY state that proposed banning gay marriage, the proposal passed by a significant margin. In Oregon, where the pro-gay movement concentrated hardest and thought they had the best chance of winning, spending millions of dollars on their campaign, it still passed by (I think) 67%. Mississippi was the stronges, at >85%.

Yeah, well that is not good is it? The people that are voting against gay marriage, which usually is all sorts of nasty people, from the KKK and Arians to "right wing nut jobs" who don't care that their prejudice and "morals" are restricting the happiness of people they're likely to NEVER meet or interact with. VERY selfish.

Those same founding fathers you mention ALL publicly stated or wrote that the Bible should be taught in school. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were atheist, but all knew the value of the morality taught within. And you're certainly correct in saying that other cultures do not share the same moral codes as traditional American Judeo-Christian values. But something about this country must be better, because they came here. You don't see mass numbers of people running away from the US to go live in China or India or Africa or anywhere else. Those traditional values shaped the system these people want.

Nothing wrong with the Bible being taught, impartially, in school, its using it as a manual for running a country composed of many different cultures and religions that I have issues with. Many of the people that are here are descendants of slaves and other cultural groups, who are either stuck here in low paying jobs and cannot afford to move (urban sprawl) or the conditions are so bad in their home country that ANYTHING is better (such as Cuba), or they simply are unaware of what is going on. Rich and wealthy people certainly do move out of the USA, most notably to other English speaking countries with laxer rules and laws. And while the founding fathers knew the value of morality, they knew that morality is SUBJECTIVE, so in making the groundwork for laws they tried to be as ambiguous and flexible as possible, which is quite genius 200+ years ago. Subsequent administrations have refined and distilled the basic laws, but contemporary conservative groups are going AGAINST what the founding fathers dictated, that of separation of church and state. The attempts to ban stem cell research are out of a fear of aborted fetus farming, or women intentionally having abortions to make a couple hundred dollars. This is absurd. Its reactionary politics, something Republicans are good at, along with empty rhetoric.

Dude, Clinton lied under oath. And admitted it. People go to jail for that, y'know. There's a lot shady about the Clintons. I met the man, and talked to plenty of people who know him personally and knew of his activities firsthand, before I cared much about politics. I can honestly say they don't call him "Slick Willy" for nothing.

I've also met Ex-President Bill Clinton, when he was overseas on a humanitarian effort back in '94 I believe. Very personable, charming and charismatic. You know what specifically he lied about under oath right? He lied about having an affair with Linda Tripp, while his wife was in the first row of benches, to an incensed Kenneth Starr who was unable to make headway upon the case at hand, that of a real estate scandal brokered by his wife Hillary. It was totally objectionable, and yet, the Republican judge, allowed the question to go forward.

Ken Starr spent MILLIONS of dollars prosecuting a president for impeachment based on a lie most men would tell. That's why three polls taken in his last year cited over 80% of those polled (three different groups) stated they wished the Republicans would end the witch hunt and act responsibly. They just hated Clinton that much, and spent our dollars to hurt the man.

Look, I know you and I will most likely never agree on these issues, and that's fine. But one thing you should do when watching the news, or anything involving another culture, is put yourself in their shoes. If guys in military fatigues beat down your door, accused you of treason, took you to a camp, stripped you naked and molested and abused you on camera, would you take it all with a smile and acknowledging it as your civic duty? Or would you hate the men who did it, since they never even had probable cause, and secretly nurture a desire for revenge?

I try to live my life by two basic rules:

Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Always attempt to put yourself in another man's shoes (figuratively) before making any opinions/judgements.

The people that voted for Bush, and fervently support him, banning of gay marriage, banning of stem cell research, continuing an unjust war, etc., etc. simply do not understand nor follow these two basic precepts.

Anyways, good argument, kicak ass on T:V! ;)

[Gambit]

I'm going to go out of order and answer Kal first.

Kal, you keep missing my point with the flyovers. I've got to assume it's intentional so I'll quit wasting breath there.

"Blood for oil" is the slogan that anti-war folks use, saying that Bush started a war, spilling blood so we can get the oil. What I meant was that if that oil isn't going to be paying for the war, that argument is pointless.

Ok, so you want A-moral insteal of im-moral laws and judges. Still, no thank you. You "want a system where laws and judgements are made to suit the issues at hand." Sounds quite similar to relative ethics. Is there no absolute right or wrong in your universe? If there is, where does it come from? Mine comes from the Bible, and while my understanding of it will change, the Bible itself won't.

My religious self is adamantly against homosexuality, as it is against any extra-marital sex. Politically, I have to acknowledge that not everyone in the country is required to share my moral code, and this part could settle for civil unions, leaving marriage for church. That doesn't mean I'll vote in favor of them, though. :)

BTW, those KKK and Aryans and nut jobs are citizens, and have the same right to vote as you do. You demonstrate here that you want others to respect your viewpoint but don't care to respect theirs. (And if I didn't respect yours and Laur's, we wouldn't be having a civil discourse here... :) )

Immigration/Emigration : There are poor folks here. There are poor folks in every country. There are rich folks in every country. Many, many, many more want to get in than get out. More people want to get into the US than anywhere in the world. Why is that?

Whether most men would tell that lie doesn't legally matter, does it?. If a law to be valid, it has to apply to all people in all situations. Pardon may be granted by a court, in special cases or under extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't make them any less guilty.

"AGAINST what the founding fathers dictated, that of separation of church and state." Actually, they never dictated that. They stated that the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Look it up. They were trying to protect religion from the state, not vice versa. If, indeed, "fundamentalist right-wingers" do achieve total power, they cannot interfere with the establishment of a Satanist church, or a Muslim mosque, a Bhuddist temple, a Jewish temple, or whatever. The same rights and freedoms granted to one religion are granted to all.

"The attempts to ban stem cell research are out of a fear of aborted fetus farming, or women intentionally having abortions to make a couple hundred dollars. This is absurd." Why is this absurd? I listened to a guy today who counseled a woman who prostituted herself and her *two-year-old daughter* to support her drug habit! When you permit abortion, and say that the fetus has no intrinsic value, and then say, waitaminnit - we can use the stem cells! What do you think is going to happen?
To clear up a little misunderstanding, there IS NO BAN on stem-cell research. It's just that there are NO FEDERAL FUNDS granted to perform said research, except on the previously identified cell groups. There's a difference there which I really wish people would acknowledge.

How can you imply that I would support the prisoner atrocities at Abu Graib? Of course that's unacceptable, for anyone to be involved in that sort of thing.
Do you think Saddam treated prisoners any better? Not that that's an excuse, but there's a big difference between that treatment being official, expected policy and the outcry that followed its discovery here. Bush, if you'll recall, went on the air and apologized to the US, Iraqis, and the world for that incident.

You claim to try to see things from the other guys viewpoint - but I haven't got so much as a glimmer of agreement on any point from you. If you'll go back and look at my posts and your posts, you'll see that I publicly acknowledge where you make points and I agree with you. Is it too much to expect a little of that in return? Surely you agree with something I said, somewhere? From what I've seen, you simply haven't looked at it from the other side. Perhaps we ought to reverse our roles - you defend Bush and I'll attack him. :)
*edit* (Your "Bible in schools" comment in your last post is close - but not quite what I meant.)


Laur,

The Torah, the Mosaic Law, is understood by the Jews to have been given to them alone. The Jews regarded themselves as a people set apart, chosen by God, and they recognized that their laws did not apply to Gentiles (non-Jews). The phrase "ten commandments" is not Jewish in origin - there are at least three places in the Torah where they are listed, and they don't always number ten. You are correct, therefore, in some of your interpretation that some things are no longer needed, such as keeping Kosher, planting the crops particular ways, etc. as they were intended to keep the Jews healthy and strong. Usually they're good to keep anyway - I know I certainly enjoy Kosher food! ;)

However, there are things that apply to Gentiles, as well. Homosexuality is directly addressed in the New Testament, as well, such as in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth. Corinth was a Greek city, not Jewish, and almost all of the people in that church were Greek. He writes there (6:9): ... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
You say to be lumped in there with adulterers is wrong. Paul said that, not I, and thieves, drunks, and crooks are lumped in there too. And, lest you think that Paul was simply intolerant, this also was written by him in that same book (9:19):
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
That's probably a little cryptic, so let me clarify and give some background. Paul was born in Tarsus, with the name Saul. He was a Jew's Jew, a Pharisee, and at the same time by virtue of his birthplace a Roman citizen. He was educated under some of the best Rabbis of his day and took Jewish law very, very seriously. In this passage, after his conversion to Christianity, he's saying among other things that he sits and eats (non-kosher) with Gentiles! (those not having the law) This was abhorrent to the Jews, and they'd have to go through purification rituals and such after just associating with such people. He's saying he does even this and more to bring Christ to these people.
And in the other verse, he says that those listed behaviors are sinful, and need to be repented of. There are other sins, and other lists, and commandments aplenty, and this is but one small example. I'm not trying to guilt-trip you. I've got sins aplenty of my own - no way I can say I'm better than you or anything like that. Your homosexuality doesn't mean a fig next to the larger issue. There are some things which do seem very clear, much as our culture wants to muddy them for its own convenience. Yes, homosexuality is one, but that's not what I'm talking about. Does God have to be made in your image for you to listen, or can you accept that a God who is capable of making the universe might have a slightly different point of view than yours? (Or mine - I'll admit that I don't have a grasp on such things beyond the Bible, or even all of that.)

[Steele]

whew dem are some long reads:) who started this thread anyways;)

Someone said:

I will continue to watch, and continue to support Laurelin with whatever aid I can give. Other than that, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't devolved into a flame war, though that may be just an impression that I get from reading other, less mature forums. I'm VERY imnpressed with the maturity and restraint shown by everyone in this debate, and while everyone rants, no one's an ass about it.

I'd like to second that...I am impressed at givien the strong feelings on each side of these issues that everyone is keeping cool...I gotta digest what I've read here tonight...good discussion:)

[Cerberus]

ok..
lets get it rolling here cause I have been thinking of my response to pen here..
Laur, I have known you for a long time, and I care for your soul which is why I am going to write this. I am not judging you. And since you are a Christian I am going to use scripture that I have read from the Bible. You should know that God did not make you a homosexual, but that you do have free will. Everything we do in life is a choice, basically between weather to sin or not. You are living in Sin.

A previous argument made about this sin versus that sin, In Gods eyes all sin is the same, being in a little sin, is like being a little pregnant. And believe me we are ALL sinners. The only thing I am trying to accomplish here is not to tell you that homosexuallity is a sin, becuase there is really no argument there, it's clear in the Bible that it is. What I am trying to do is get you to acknowledge your sin, because I have the impression that you do not. And until we acknowledge that we are sinners, we can not be redeemed.

Ok while it does say that All Scripture is Usefull for Teaching and Rebuking,
The Blood of the New Covenant, which is to say The Christian Covenant washes away the old law, and ushers in a law in our hearts and minds, guided by the holy spirit that dwells with in us.
So if you don't like how it's plainly spelled out in Leviticus that Homosexual behavior is a sin. Then I'll direct your attention to Romans, specifically the chapter on Gods Wrath against Mankind, where Homosexual behavior is called a perversion, and to support it, is also named as a sin. The current thread among especially a group of Episcopalians (sp?) is that Jesus did not say it's wrong, so it's ok. They suggest that there is no authority in scripture.
The Bible is a package deal. All Scripture is Authoritative. The Apostle Paul was called specifically by the Lord Jesus Christ, the other twelve Apostles recognized this. (Read Acts) That being said, all of Paul's books are breathed of God. That means that if Paul said it, God said it. Becuase Paul always referred to himself as a Slave of Christ we can tell that he was doing exactly the will of God, in everything thing he did or wrote, how can a slave do otherwise.
Paul was Christ's emissary to the Gentiles (non jews) so he speaks on all of these issue's about OT vs NT. I would suggest that you read all of Pauls letters. Hebrews is also a good example of OT vs NT.
So I recommend reading Romans (the Leviticus of the NT) and Hebrews.


and just a side note, to all those arguing about wether or not we should or should not have invaded, at this point it doesn't really matter does it.
Well I can tell you it doesn't, I have been sitting here 8 months now in Baghdad, and it doesn't matter a damn bit.
We're here. We removed a brutal dictator, oh and let me give you an example of the country some of you would have had us leave be. One of our interpreters, his car broke down on the freeway. While he was walking to the next gas station, he was arrested. This was under the Saddam regime. Becuase he didn't have the money to bribe the local cops, he spent 30 days in jail for a car on the side of the freeway. Do you want to know what the jail cell was like, you do good i'll tell you.
ALL RED. the whole thing. The only color Fuad was allowed to see for 30 was red. Red food, Red walls, Red sheets, Red bed, Red Floor. Spend some time in a one color room see if it's fun. And why becuase his car broke down. So tell me that the Saddam regime needed to stay in power? I don't think so. Are we mired down in this country now? YUP. we sure are. Blame that one where blame is due, RUMSFELD! theres a guy that needs to Go. President Bush did exaclty as a President is supposed to do. Assign the mission, let the Military leaders accomplish the mission. The only thing Bush is doing wrong right now, is not Firing Rumsfeld. So let me get something else clear about Sin, the reason the world does not like us, is becuase We are a moral light in the world and it hurts thier faces. Sinners do not like to let go of their Sin.
:D
have a nice day.

[Steele]

Kal I disagree with sumthin you said...

I try to live my life by two basic rules:

Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Always attempt to put yourself in another man's shoes (figuratively) before making any opinions/judgements.

I agree :)

The people that voted for Bush, and fervently support him, banning of gay marriage, banning of stem cell research, continuing an unjust war, etc., etc. simply do not understand nor follow these two basic precept.

I Disagree...that statment is as judgmental as those who would accuse me of being Judgmental towards Gay Marriage because I voted for Bush...I do not and will not ever support Gay marriage...I think it is wrong...I took my vows before God and my wife...I do not believe God approves of a marriage between a man and a man...I beleive this was not the way God designed things...

Now one could say I am being judgmental and I would say to them that they are being as equally jugdmental of me...that is why we vote...should the Issue of same sex marriage be brought to a vote? I dunno...but if it is I will vote against it...If it is determined that it is not up to the voters to decide such an issue well then I'll still think it is wrong...and I'll get on with my life...I have many Gay and Lesbian Friends...I think their lifestyle is wrong...I still love them though and call them my Friends...they know how I feel...sorry to pick on this one issue however it is one that struck a chord with me...

This I know for sure:

1. there is a God
2. I am not Him
3. when our time on earth here is done I/we won't have to debate any of this
4. I know where I am going to spend eternity

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

One thing I'd like to add is this:

In the Constitution, it states that one of the rights of the people is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That would be in the Bill of Rights, I believe.

Well....


Couldn't it be argued that gay-marriage bans infringe on the Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness? The marriage is between two consensual adults. Their own belief systems (and yours) should have no part in how they live their lives. And it should have no say when it comes to infringing the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I believe that if the pro-gay-marriage folks wanted to contest state laws banning gay marriage, that they would have a VERY solid argument based on the Constitution.



Here's my take on the religion versus state thing:


I believe very deeply that religion is a personal thing. I also believe that my personal beliefs can NEVER dictate how another person lives their life, except when how they live their life infringes on someone else. It's a bit interesting to look at my own beliefs, but I firmly believe that since I choose to live in the United States, that the Constitution is the guiding document of principles for ALL citizens. My own personal religious beliefs CAN'T supercede the Constitution, because my personal religious beliefs are my own.

THAT is what scares the bejeezus out of me when Bush states things like a "gay marriage ban". And I can understand why he would push for an amendment... which is something that is unlikely to occur. But I call him an idiot for never understanding that America is America because of the fact that each person can have their own religious beliefs; even religious beliefs that involve such things as animal sacrifice. I'm not a fan of animal sacrifice (it's a waste in my mind, and serves no purpose other than making a mess and satisfying the slaughterer's desire for the adrenaline rush associated with the kill... taking lives, especially in a bloody mess would put adrenaline in pretty much anyone's bloodstream). I realize that animal sacrifice, if done humanely, satisfies a religious belief, and causes little pain and suffering to the sacrificial animal. It doesn't harm anyone. Yet it's still against my personal beliefs. Yet I would NEVER impose my belief on someone else. I'm all about killing animals for food though (just to make it clear that I am not against killing animals).


You see... in the kind of "moral" government that Bush and his Republican friends are trying to bring to law would outlaw that kind of religious practice.



And here's another example: prayer at work. I'm a government employee, and there is the whole separation of church and state thing. Plus there are my personal beliefs on prayer (it's personal to me... shouldn't be shared with others).

Yet, I've been to two meetings where the meeting was started with a prayer. I mean, WTF!!?!????!!!? When did the US government become a theocracy? I'm more than likely going to walk out of the next meeting that does that. That kind of thing has NO place. It's not just me either. I could see two people who looked to be of Indian origins that were definitely uncomfortable.

Yet, I know for a fact that Bush sees no problem with starting a meeting with a prayer. That's not right, IMO.

[SiFi]

Thanks for quoting me, steele. It's nice to know that my words aren't totally unfounded.

[Aluscia]

I'm speechless. I guess I'll see you in hell, SiFi :D

[Cerberus]

Well, as the constitution is written, the seperation of church and state means, that the US government will not have an official religion, not that it will pretend religion doesn't exist.

[Steele]

Asha I agree with what you said:

I believe that if the pro-gay-marriage folks wanted to contest state laws banning gay marriage, that they would have a VERY solid argument based on the Constitution.

I agree 100%. this being based on the US Constitution...Based on the Bible...well you know where I stand...What I object to is being called "Judgemental" because I do not support a certain issue or lifestyle because of my beleifs...

I'm not a fan of animal sacrifice.....I realize that animal sacrifice, if done humanely, satisfies a religious belief, and causes little pain and suffering to the sacrificial animal. It doesn't harm anyone. Yet it's still against my personal beliefs. Yet I would NEVER impose my belief on someone else. I'm all about killing animals for food though (just to make it clear that I am not against killing animals).

OK...I agree with part of this here...suppose Joe Blow congressman, senator, or President wanted to leagalize Animal sacrifice...it does not harm anyone, does not hurt you...however you personally do not agree with it as you have said...suppose you are now asked by the Pro-animal sacrifice group to support with your vote...how would you vote? I look at the Gay marriage thing in the same light...yeah it does not hurt me...it does not directly affect the way I go about living my life...but as long as I have a choice I am going to choose no...

Cerberus said:
Well, as the constitution is written, the seperation of church and state means, that the US government will not have an official religion, not that it will pretend religion doesn't exist.

Well then be married, dedicated, or whatever in the eyes is the US Government then...not in the eyes of God...I will still vote against this if given the opportunity to vote on it...

Laurelin:
I'm speechless. I guess I'll see you in hell,

Who said yer going to hell? I hope you don't think myself or anyone else here is attacking you because you are Gay...I just disagree with your viewpoint...I hope you understand that...

Tim

[SiFi]

It is better to be at the right hand of the devil than in his path, but better yet to eliminate him and actually get the whole end of the world thing on track. ; )

[Stang]

Its good to see that we are all mature enough around here and can discuss this type of issue and not get out of control here. Thanks guys! :)

Frustrating at times but everyone has good points even if we don't all agree on things.

[Gambit]

Asha said:
Yet, I've been to two meetings where the meeting was started with a prayer. You WHAT!?! Wow. I sure wouldn't expect that on a government job! In a private company, it's unusual but hardly unheard-of. As a Christian, of course, I would heartily support praying before a meeting - however, what if the guy saying the prayer was (since you mentioned Indian) Hindu? I'd sure not be participating. Not sure what I WOULD do, though there are several options. I also am not a fan of putting someone in that position without at least asking, in a secular environment like the workplace.

BTW - I thought the pursuit of happiness thing was in the Declaration of Independence?

You're absolutely right when you say "My own personal religious beliefs CAN'T supercede the Constitution, because my personal religious beliefs are my own," though I would add that they can supercede the Constitution for an individual internally. But they can and should guide your decisions, whether or not you're holding public office. Your religion is part of who you are - if it's a mask that you put on or take off depending on what you're doing, what good is it? But if you neglect the duties and responsibilities of your public office (defend the constitution, etc.) in favor of your religious beliefs then you shouldn't be in that office. And yes, I'll direct that to the current office-holder as well.

I'm glad we're getting some more participation here. Thanks, Laur, because you brought up a normally highly inflammatory issue, and people saw no flames from any direction, I think they were encouraged to jump in. I hope you're not feeling picked on, but if you are then I sincerely apologize.
We're all friends here (I hope :) ) and friends should be able to disagree without shattering the friendship - else it wasn't much to start with, eh?

No, SiFi, your words were never ignored. There was just this massive volume of other stuff, y'know?

[Stang]

No picking on my Laurilen :p.

Yes the sexuality was used but I'm glad I've grown to know Laurelin. He is a great person, same with Kitzune. I don't think of what they do in the bedroom I look at what we have been thru together. I mean it would be the same I don't want to know what any of you guys do in your bedroom :P. I guess I just don't see why people look at someone and judge them for what they do as a couple and not what the people themselves are all about. It was scary at first but then I got to know them and it has opened my eyes even more. Im glad Laurelin and Kitz are in my life.

I know you guys aren't going after Laurelin personally I just felt like I needed to say what I have experienced and my opinion. I don't get into these discussions much just cuz I don't know how to express my side of things very well and others say it better than me. But I do like to read them and see what everyones thoughts are. As it has opened my mind on some things too.

[SiFi]

hehehe. I never thought my words were being ignores, I did actually feel that the discdussion was moving out of my area of knowledge. Witness my small posts vs your guys novellas : P

[Gambit]

Hey, brief is good! :)

[Steele]

lets not get to talkin about Gryphon's Underwear...that will really make this thread go places we don't wanna go;) :nono

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Steele: animal sacrifice is definitely a legal religious practice, performed by a small sect of the Catholic Church (for one, there are two other examples of religions that do this, but I can't recall them). Human sacrifice is not, for obvious reasons. ;)


The point I'm making is this:

Steele:
I agree 100%. this being based on the US Constitution...Based on the Bible...well you know where I stand...What I object to is being called "Judgemental" because I do not support a certain issue or lifestyle because of my beleifs...

But that's the thing. You are putting your religious beliefs onto another person. IMO, that is a VERY wrong thing to do! That's the whole point! That's why I have a problem with prayer before a meeting. How I practice my religious beliefs is of no concern to someone else, as long as I can do my job and I don't hurt anyone. To me, participating in a prayer before a meeting with people I hardly know, performing a prayer in a way that is offensive to me, is something that I can't tolerate. After that experience, I can relate to what people feel with the whole gay-marriage issue... it's like you are being squeezed into a box with a vise.

That's also why I have a HUGE problem with things like putting the ten commandments up on government property, calling a meeting to order with a prayer, or acting on your beliefs when they are not harming you. Basically, all of that is putting one person's religious views onto another.


Some examples of other places that religion doesn't belong:
-Giving creationism equal weight to evolution. One demonstrates exactly how the scientific method works; the other has a basis on a book composed centuries ago by people that could have altered the words or put the book together in a way that furthered their views on how things should be. And to a great extent, I would say that a literal interpretation of creationism should NOT have equal footing with evolution because there is no science behind it... God created everything; that's it. Biology is a science class, not a religion class!

-People who tout their own views on how to live their lives, and then condemn those that do not conform to their veiws. (Southern Baptists, anyone?)

-People that want to say prayers in schools. I definitely don't want my kids to worship God/Budda/Brahma/whatever with me having no say. And I certainly don't want them to be teased because they have to be pulled away while the other kids do the prayer stuff.




In short, if you base your moral values on religion, that's fine. But realize that people don't share the same morals.



And Steele: if you vote for a gay-marriage ban, then more power to you. It's your vote. I'm only asking, what if the situation were reversed? What if something that you do in your personal life became illegal? And what if you were denied the benefits of marriage (you and your wife), because a majority of folks joined a new religion that said it was better to have no spouses, only concubines? And what if they were offended that you should call your monogamous union a marriage?

[PrincessAmy]

Wow!!! It's been a few days since Mr. Jester posted his post about his view on some things... I just had a chance to read it...and WOW...you go, honey!!! :s0003: :usa: :jester2: :bump: :redbounce :bouncy: :imu: ;) :jester:

[Steele]

Asha...

But that's the thing. You are putting your religious beliefs onto another person. IMO, that is a VERY wrong thing to do!

no I'm not. I am putting my religious beliefs into my decision...if Gay Marriage was allowed I would still disagree with it but hey, I would go on living my life...Again, as long as I am given a chance to vote I will cast my ballot against it...I do not see that as pushing my faith on someone else...I could say that you or someone else is pushing your beleifs on me because I don't support gay marriage...

If the shoe were on the other foot I would agree that it would indeed suck...seem unfair...or even unjust...but I'd have to live with it...I don't know whatelse I can say to that...

the Prayer thing I agree with you on...personally I am OK with prayer at work, meetings, school ect...

you Know regardless of one's stand on Bush and his Christian Agenda...I would argue that this is not just a Christian thing...Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, for instance are other faiths that condem Homosexuality...I would argue that the majority of Americans would not support a law to leagalize Gay marrige...is that fair? I don't know? Leave that to the Supreme Court...

In short, if you base your moral values on religion, that's fine. But realize that people don't share the same morals.

I agree. if I make my decisions based on my moral values don't say I'm pushing my faith on other people...if so don't ask me for a decision...

[Gambit]

BTW, here's a series of pictures with text of the ten commandments monument from Alabama that was so in the news recently. I suggest that people read the quotes thereon from our founding fathers before talking about "separation of church and state" and similar issues.

http://www.morallaw.org/monument.htm

[Cerberus]

Yes, well, as I have said earlier, seperation of church and state as written in the Constitution means the US Government will not have an Official Religion. The problem lies in assumption. If you allow Prayer in school's, then people ASSUME that the government is favoring one religion over another. When in reality, they are allowing Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speach. The real deal is, if you don't like it, don't listen to it. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. I am also not a big fan of censorship. Of course we need to have legal boundries, but, radio, tv, I mean, language.. I don't approve of foul language, but I also don't approve of the Government bleeping it out. What I approve of Is strong Parenting establishing moral values in their Children to turn that Trash off! It's not going to go away if we hide/ignore it, but if we teach it away, then it will decline.

Should we allow prayer in school? Absolutely, Prayer should be allowed everwhere. Just as a Nursing Mother should be allowed to Nurse when the Baby is hungry. Should we require Children of different faiths to remain seated or stay in the vicinity, absolutely not. Should we call Christmas Christmas? YES! Every other country in the world has a religion that is predominant, the people not of the dominant faith deal with it becuase thats their country they were born there. Our country is a melting pot. We are predominently Judeo/Christian. Guess what if you come to the US chances are you're going to see some Christians. Quite frankly don't try to tell me when and where to pray Jesus tells us to pray constantly, thats what I'll do!

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

One thing to point out... and you guys are going to hate me for this....

The "Laws of nature and of nature's God" quote stems from the fact that many of the founding fathers were naturalists and believed that nature is something to work with, not control. These thoughts on nature led to the trancendentalists in following years. (I kid you not!)

As for the pledge quotes, those weren't added until the '50s to counter the "Red Threat" of communism which dictated that there could not be a religion. It was decided in that decade that "In God We Trust" and "under God," would be added to the government's official seals and pledge of allegiance to show how un-communist the US was.

The quotes from Mason and Madison were also a dividing issue in the formation of the government. Remember that the colonists had in some part left England due to it's very tight integration of church and state. Franklin was a large force against putting strong religious language into the documents that they worked to create. But it was decided that the quotes should stay because they represented some parts of the colonists' beliefs and it could be argued that the statements were not overly aggressive.


How I know these things? I studied the Constitution as part of my American Literature class in college. Taking things in context made for very interesting reading. And the forming of those first documents was done with a lot of argument and compromise... which is how it's still done today. ;)

[Cerberus]

nope don't hate you!

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Sweet! :)

Jester, here's my take on prayer in schools:

If it's allowed, then that's fine. Then ALL religious views have to be expressed. If there are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, or whatever in the class, then each of their religious practices should be given equal weight.

The simple reason is that no single religion should be given precedence over another, with the obvious condition that only the represented religions should be represented. Too often in college, I would hear other students come in and ask if anyone wanted to go pray. That's fine... but if you extend that situation to elementary school, and say you have a couple of devout people that pray every hour... where do you draw the line? Is the entire school day going to be spent in prayer?

I am not against prayer in schools. I am against schools allowing prayer and the people in those schools only doing one religious practice while the other, not-that-religion kids are left in the corner. Say letting Christians pray, but denying a Muslim their chance to do their requisite number of prayers throughout the day.

I guess I'm saying that you either have to disallow ANY prayer whatsoever in schools (misperceptions or no), or you have to allow EVERY religious practice. And there is no gray area because there are so many different religions.

And the great thing about the US is that as an American, I can practice whatever religious faith I wish. I don't have to live with it (or without), even if the majority religion is Christianity. I am free to practice how I wish. In many countries that have a national religion, that is not the case.


Oh and Jester: you guys MIGHT be getting some new toys. If you know which things I am talking about, I hope they work well! (There are a couple of things that are going into operational testing... and HPMs would be one that is public.) Part of my job is staying current on certain kinds of weapons.

[Gambit]

I guess I'm saying that you either have to disallow ANY prayer whatsoever in schools (misperceptions or no), or you have to allow EVERY religious practice. I'd have to agree with you - as far as "official" positions are concerned. But institutions cross a line when they say a student can't go pray by the flagpole, or over their lunch, or whatever. And, you know, there are a lot of places these days where it's perfectly acceptable to say "Happy Hannukah" or Kwanzaa or whatever, but if you say "Merry Christmas" people start to complain. Stuff like that REALLY gets the Christian folks worked up, and it should - don't you think?

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

I totally agree Gambino. If you say the other stuff, you should be able to say "Merry Christmas". Stupid PC bastards.

And I would agree that a student should be able to worship on their own time. My thing is when school time is taken up doing prayer, and when that prayer time only covers the majority (which in most schools is Christianity of one flavor or another).



I've got more to say, but I won't be able to state it here for a few days. I'm going to be busy with RL stuff.

[Cerberus]

Oh yeah, taking time out from class that multi religious people are invovled in would be wrong if it was predominately one.
I agree that prayer should be allowed anytime, but I am not talking about special pre class prayer groups, those should be done in the 5 minute window between class. Do you see where I am going? I don't agree with banning prayer out right. Plus when I say Merry Christmas I am expressing my faith, not pushing it on you. So get over it! I'm gonna say Merry Christmas. If I was talking to a Jew I might just say Happy Hannukah. Don't think I would say happy Kwanza tho .. what is that?

[Cerberus]

994

[Cerberus]

995

[Cerberus]

996 some of you may remember this as the you got lagged out from Tribes

[Cerberus]

997

[Cerberus]

998

[Cerberus]

999

[Cerberus]

yay 1000!!! w00t?

[Aluscia]

Lookslike 1002 on all your posts :P

[Stang]

Those posts shouldn't count :p. I think some should be deleted :).

Kwanza is the religious holiday for African Americans.

[PrincessAmy]

WTG! :jester2:

[Cerberus]

I know that, but WHAT is Kwanza?

[Gambit]

(*rant on*)
I'm going to make a sharp turn here and state publicly that I despise the term "African-American." Ok, so these people have an African heritage that they're proud of. Congratulations! It's a rich heritage. However, I don't go around demanding to be called a "German-American" or "British-American" or "European-American" or "Caucasian-American." If "white" people are called "Caucasian", then "black" people should be called "Negroids" or some such - it's an equivalent term. If it's "whites" and "coloreds" or "blacks," ok, but I can understand the reasons for getting away from those terms. IIRC, I believe that "Latin-American" people equally dislike the term "Hispanic," which is also broadly used on government forms and what-not.
I don't believe we should use country of origin for one group, continent for another, and culture for a third.
(*rant off*)
Ok, I'm done. We now return you to your regularly scheduled conversation.


I think Kwanzaa is a kind of generalized thing, rather than a specific event such as someone's birth or a specific deity's holy day or whatever. Might be a midwinter (midsummer?) festival.

Short answer = me dunno for sure either. :)

[Ghryphen]

Yeah, I don't think it is religious, it is just a celebration of african heritage which happens to be along the same time as Xmas.

[Stang]

I agree about the African American thing but its hard to say black or negro cuz they also take offense to those sayings too, only they can say that amongst themselves but if we say it then we are racists and then it all starts. Its hard to find out what to call everyone without hurting them, arggghhhh.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Call them black. Don't use other words that have known negative connotations. If people are offended by it, then they're overly sensitive. I had a discussion about this with a guy that I work with. He's black. He was born in Atlanta, and moved to Denver at the ripe old age of 11. But he said that black is okay for him, and that he didn't understand why people were so sensitive towards that term. He said that in Atlanta, black is just fine. It's the other words that people have used for years, that are still used, that get to him and other blacks.

He also said that in his experience if a person just explodes when you use that word, and they don't ask you to not use it but just explode instead, then they are just looking for an excuse to make things into a white versus black thing.

I have also heard the same thing from my girlfriend. She teaches at a local school here with several black kids, a few hispanic kids, and a couple of white kids. And there is one black girl in particular who tries to throw the race thing at my girlfriend when she tries to get her to do something. "You hate me because I'm black!", "You are being mean to me because I'm black!", and "You're focusing on me because I'm black!" are all things this girl has said. Fortunately, my girlfriend had a student EXACTLY like this one in her student teaching days. And she also substituted in a district with a LOT of black kids. So when this girl tried using her skin color, my girlfriend was like, "That's not true! Stop saying that when it isn't true." My girlfriend specifically wanted to teach in a school that has many different ethnicities because a class of all white people would freak her out. (It'd freak me out too... and that's one of the reasons that I'll NEVER EVER live in the southeastern US.)


One thing that my girlfriend has consistently noted in most of the places she's taught, is that you can tell which kids are getting that kind of influence from their parent(s). It's sad.

I definitely understand that there is a culture difference between people with different skin colors. And a lot of the tension arises from misperceptions or misunderstandings. And some of the stuff is probably racist one both sides. But the majority of things is that people just don't try to truly understand each other. (And yes, contrary to belief, having black skin means that most people WILL treat you different. It's totally odd how you can watch people interact and see that there is definitely a culture clash. And I've heard black people say that regardless of whether a person is racist or not, they are treated differently when interacting with non-black people.)

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Back to the religious thing... :D


My point is not that a person praying is forcing their religion on me. That would be silly. Rather it's someone coming in and demanding that their religious beliefs be set on equal footing as my own. This statement comes from two sources in my life:
1) I used to go to church with my family. There were several members of the congregation that were devout. They were your classic bible thumpers. Now that's fine and all. But when one of them approached me and we started chatting and she found out that I really liked math and science in school, she asked if God was in my life. She also gave me a sad look, like I was a lost puppy or something. I was like WTF? I was also pissed that her version of how things should be, was something that she was trying to impose on me. (Same thing with the Christain people at the UW that like to hand out bibles and denounce various things, and say that those that don't believe in God will go to hell. To me, that's imposing your religious beliefs on me. I got pissed one time when a guy got right up in my face, and I told the guy to **** off. He started screaming that satan was leading me down a dangerous path and that I would burn in hell.)

Rediculous is what I call it.

2) The evolution debate. Personally, I could care less what someone believes about how the world was created or whatever. But what I find utterly revolting, and just plain pisses me off, is when someone comes in and wants to mandate that religious viewpoints, which have no basis on scientific fact, come in and try to put creationism on the same footing as evolution IN A SCIENCE CLASS! If the school wants to teach a religion class, or partner with a local religious school, then FINE! But keep science and religion separate, because the two are like water and oil.



I guess, in general, that my viewpoints rest on the simple fact that I absolutely HATE it when someone tells me how to believe. They're telling me where to put my faith. Well, I can tell them where to shove their faith. (No offense to anyone here that's of the preacher mindset. ;) ) The other thing that I am conveying is that different sects of Christianity believe different things. In the Catholic Church, we are taught that God works through the preists and it is our duty to worship Him. We are also taught that God expects us to give a percentage of what we have to the Church. While in offshoots of the Lutheran Church, God and you have a personal connection. God will work through you.

I'm of the latter. And it's a result of seeing how corrupt the Catholic Church can be. And my personal beliefs also could be said to include some of the Native American philosophies that all things have a place and a balance, though not necessarily to the point that the rocks and trees have spirits or anything like that. Just that the Native Americans knew how to live WITH the land for the most part, and modern society in the US tries to control it. (Yes, you can kind of tell that I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, where the timber companies replant what they take, where water is conserved, where the people that like the outdoors try to maintain the natural beauty of the land, and where even though you may not necessarily be a tree hugger, you still have an appreciation for nature.)


For the record, I don't find practicing your faith offensive, it's when you attempt to cross the line and instill your faith on me (or on kids, who generally don't know better and should be taught by their parents). Even though I would call myself somewhat of a Christian, and on occasion, I'll have the urge to go to a Catholic Church, I would say that someone else telling me how and what to believe, and where to place my faith will get me riled up. :D



And back to the gay marriage thing....

As an example... and this may be discomforting to talk about... if you do anything BUT man+woman, penis-in-the-vagina sex, you are commiting sodomy. Yes, the definition of sodomy, includes things like anal sex and perverse things like sex with animals and stuff, but it also includes anything except sex between man and woman (minus man+woman anal sex, of course).

Anyways, there are several states that have laws against sodomy. Have you given or received oral sex? You're going to jail! Do anything even REMOTELY outside of penis-in-the-vagina, man on top or woman on top and you are doing sodomy.

I don't know how many men here have gone outside of that boundary (and I don't know that I want to know). But if you have, or if you could put yourself in that man's (or woman's) shoes, then you understand what it feels like to have someone else regulate what you do in your bedroom/desk/etc.

I find it interesting and funny that people want to regulate what others do in the privacy of their homes. And I find it interesting, funny, and revolting that people feel the need to keep others down when what they do with their lives has no impact on their own.



I do think there should be gay marriages or civil unions or whatever, and I think it is ABSOLUTELY necessary that those unions be recognized by the government and accorded the rights that such a union should receive. Hell, you get right down to it, and I suppose that one man could get a sex change to a woman, marry his boyfriend, then get the government's blessing. And you'd still have a man and a man. ;)

As for marriage being a religious thing... yeah, I can definitely see that. And I think I agree with that particular word being reserved for a union blessed in a Church. But then I think about it and wonder what the different between a marriage and a civil union is outside of such a religious blessing. ;)

[Gambit]

Whee! Ok, here we go.

First, let me apologize for the "bible thumping" types you seem to have run across. I'll mention this attitude later.

Secondly, if you believe that what a person is saying has no validity, then how are they imposing anything upon you? No one has a gun to your head, right?

Christian beliefs - I'll get back to that in a moment.

Evolution is a theory. It's not a law. You said in an earlier post that it exhibits the scientific method, but there are a number of respected folks in the scientific community who'd disagree with you, without needing to propose an alternate answer such as creation. BTW, I strongly disagree with your statement that science and religion is like oil and water. Why should they be? There is, after all, only one explanation of how we got here. Both science and religion can, and should, be on the side of truth and fact.
Yes, evolutionary theory should be taught, as a theory. And creation should be taught, as what a group of people believe. And when the kid asks the teacher about the beginning of life, the answer should be "I don't know." Just as there are mindless fanatics on the creation side of the issue, there are mindless fanatics on the evolution side who couldn't tell you why they believe it or address the issues any better.


Now then. Christian faith. You say you would call yourself "somewhat of a Christian". Based on what? The (almost exclusive) record we have of Christ's life is in the Bible. That Bible, and Christ's own words, repeatedly make the point that you're on one side or the other, and that fence-sitters are nauseating. You have either accepted His gift to you or you've not. Note that I'm not telling you what to believe - I'm telling you what the Bible says. Whether or not you accept that authority is up to you.

Today's "Christian" culture is, well, phony. Going to Christian church makes you a Christian like going to a garage makes you a car. Are there Christians there? Maybe. Are there people who call themselves such, but aren't? Pretty likely. Is it the duty of any man to get up in your face and scream that you're going to hell? Very, very unlikely. I say that because, y'know, God can use ANYthing! But that doesn't make it right. We're supposed to be loving! WWJD, and all. But, would you let someone you loved walk alone and unarmed into a dark alley where you know there's muggers? You would, at bare minimum, want to warn them, and you'd probably plead with them not to go, especially when one street down there's a nice, well lit and safe path. THIS is the kind of concern that should be shown when a Christian shares their faith, not "You stupid (bleep), don't go in there!"

You mentioned corruption in the church. You specified Catholic, but can apply anywhere. In short, men and their institutions are corruptible. That's why we need God, after all. When the layman can't or won't read the scriptures he's supposed to obey, that's a wonderful opportunity for the crook, isn't it? That's one reason Paul said we should follow no man but Christ alone.
We are supposed to give of ourselves and goods to the church, and the church is supposed to help those in need. The early Christians were almost communal!

Nature: Again, many places in the Bible, we are told to be good stewards of what we're given. That means responsible use of resources like trees, water, animals, and energy, among other things. Greed is also obviously to be avoided. (There's more verses about dealing with money than hell.) God would therefore seem, at least in this respect, to approve more of the naturalist than a money-grubbing corporate pirate, neh? But not if he's killing people who are chopping down trees.

Biblical references can be easily provided upon request. :)

[Kaleban]

Look its quite simple, and I'm just tired of reading these long posts.

1. Gay marriage. Doesn't affect anyone but the two being married. Whatever you term it, its no one's business but the two involved. Religious folks can opt not to allow gay marriage in THEIR house, but since most homosexuals aren't Bible-thumping Christians, that should also have no affect on them. Unfortunately, the country is controlled by Bible-thumpers, so the USA is effectively their house. And they have no respect for alternate viewpoints. Just go try and ask Zell Miller a poignant question, he might duel you.

2. Religion in schools. If it were up to me, I would say don't allow it. There are too many opportunities for religious fanatics to impose their own viewpoints (or force) on impressionable children. Religion should be taught in the home, according to the parent's own views, which allows children some freedom of expression and thought while at school. This of course would not apply to religious institutions and such. Now while some may argue that non-religious folks can also be fanatics, its more difficult to be fanatical about an ABSENCE of belief, than a surfeit of it.

3. Abortion. Whether you like it or not, a woman has control over her own body. That includes the life within it. If you make legislative or judicial sanctions on what a woman can do with her own body, than you might as well turn back the clock a century or so and treat women as property. Just so you all know, I knew a girl who got pregnant in high school, and guess what, she was a preacher's daughter. She was white. The father was Indonesian. Once the father found out, he took the day off from preaching fire and brimstone to get his daughter an abortion, he wouldn't have no "half-breed" in his house. The daughter comitted suicide about a month later. So much for the healing power of religion.

4. The Bible. Its a document written by men. A large-ish portion of it was written during the Dark Ages, to assist the church and feudal lords in controlling the downtrodden peasantry. Giving them a sliver of hope of release in the afterlife was an effective measure at keeping them on the lands of the lords. The Bible has also gone through multiple revisions, translations, and interpretations, there is pretty much no chance that ANY version of the Bible today reflects Christ's actual teachings. However, every kindergardner knows what Christ taught, simply "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A simple rule, that all the parable and stories of the Bible cannot show. And it always amazes me that religious folks talk of "THE Bible" when in fact there are so many different types. Almost makes me wish for the Torah or Qu'Ran, at least those have only one printing and aren't fractured into many groups.

Lastly, as is always the case, religious folks won't entertain the notion that they're possibly wrong, and non-religious folks won't entertain the notion that logic CAN'T change a religious person's beliefs. Its an argument that will only be proved by death, which is ironic because than you can't report back! Anyways, good arguing with you guys, find peace and love, each in your own way, and "to hell" with anyone who tells you otherwise! ;)

[Cerberus]

Um, I don't think anything in the Bible was written after AD 80 so thats what? 1000 years before the dark ages?

Gay marriages warp kids.

Abortion: A womans right to do with her body is when she chooses to have sex..
after she gets preggo... welp The baby is more important than she is.
The gray area? when a woman does not get to CHOOSE to have sex. RAPE/Insest.

Religion in schools? The School itself cannot place one above the other, thats the Constitution, but it can be allowed, thats in the Constitution also.

:D

[Gambit]

For the sake of brevity, I'll only mention a couple of points Jester didn't.

US is NOT controlled by bible-thumpers. Else we wouldn't have legal abortions, murder, sex, and obscenities on TV and movies, and lots of other stuff.

EVERY religion of any size has factions. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Mormons, everybody. The more popular it is, the more likely you'll find violent wackos who don't get it but want to use it for their own purposes - Muslim terrorists, "Christian" clinic-bombers, and so on. Wearing the same label doesn't make everyone alike.

Quite easy to be fanatical about atheism. Such a person might get riled up everytime someone mentions God, for example. It's the "anybody but" syndrome, like why some people voted for Kerry. :)

(Aha! Full circle, back to election results topic!)

[Kaleban]

The Bible has been added to, changed, translated, and even subtracted from since the inception of Christianity as an organized religion. If nothing had been changed, you wouldn't have Lutherans, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, etc., etc. There would be only one.

Gay marriage/civil unions don't warp children, abusive marriages with alcoholic parents who beat or molest their children is what warps kids. Of course, if you consider politeness, generosity and good nature warping, and would rather have a beer-swilling, wife beating arm chair quarterback for a kid, than I suppose gay marriage is bad.

You can't draw lines regarding abortion as to the circumstance of birth. Pro-lifers say abortion is murder, but you're saying murder is ok if the conditions merit it? Either a woman's body is her own province, or it isn't, REGARDLESS of outside circumstances.

And as to religion in schools, tell me the last time the native american child was allowed to offer prayers to the earth spirit, or the saudi arabian child allowed to give thanks to Allah? It DOESN'T happen, and anyone who says its guaranteed by the Constitution so quit whining is intentionally blinding themselves to the truth. The truth being that most of the country is controlled by Christians and their ilk, so that pro-Christian views have much more weight than secular or other religious views. Want proof? Just ask yourself why there is no other powerful religious lobbying group, APART from the Christian Coalition?

/rant.

[Steele]

and I'm just tired of reading these long posts.

Kal...with all due respect...don't read em then:)

[Gambit]

Dude. Get some facts.
Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They contain, in whole and part, much of the contents of the New Testament - and are reliably dated back to the first century. Were there changes? Yes, a few. An event chronicled here isn't present there. This city's name was spelled differently. That phrase was translated poorly. Stuff like that. Do NOT get me started on the validity of the Bible unless you want to wade through a HUGE pile of references from both the Christian community and the scientific community. I invite you to do a little research.

Lutherans and Baptists use the same Bible. The Catholics have a few extra books, nothing major is different in them. The differences between the three denominations are attributable to interpretation and tradition.

The Mormons have a couple of additional books which are demonstrably fiction, and have no scientific validity that I'm aware of. Their leaders seem to change the source material when it suits them. These books seem to take precedence over the Bible and contradict it on many major points.

Saying hetero households are alcoholic child molesters and gay households are polite, generous, and good-natured is obvious hyperbole. You're breaking a number of debating rules, here, Kal.

Jester didn't say abortion in case of rape/incest was ok. He said it was a grey area. I disagree, though I'm not unsympathetic. (Rapists should be castrated, IMHO)

There are many other powerful religious lobbying groups than the Christian Coalition - you just don't hear about them in the media. I know for a fact that there are large visible Muslim and Jewish organizations, though they're not quite as strident. And the Jewish and Christian political bodies do NOT always stand on the same side of an issue.

Schools & prayers to Allah/earth spirit. You bet it happens. More often in a special program or something than class, but that happens too. Again, you don't hear about it much - but then they're minorities, aren't they? How much Christian news are you going to hear in China or Saudi? Here's an article I easily found where school kids are required to act Muslim :
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=12
Not just dress Muslim, or learn about Muslim culture, but ACT Muslim, chanting Muslim prayers, and the like. Without informing parents, may I add.

Other stories:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/143.html

[Kaleban]

Okay, first to Steele, that comment was tongue in cheek, since I'M long-winded and usually write long overblown posts hehe.

To Gambit, I'm not breaking any debate rules, didn't know we were going formal. In any case, you mention the Mormons having books with no basis in scientific fact. You know, I don't remember the last time I saw fire rain down from the sky, a flood to cover all, some old guy parting a sea of water, etc., etc.

MOST religious texts are all parable. That is they tell a story to demonstrate a "rule of life" or moral code. Its a great way to teach young or uneducated people, since even a child understands the reasons why David can win against Goliath and other stories. They also instill hope.

But to tell me that the Catholic Bible rests solely on scientific evidence, well, that's just ignorant. Or ANY religious text for that matter. If they were scientific, they wouldn't be a faith, nor would we be having arguments! What about Creation vs. Evolution. There's plenty of scientific evidence FOR Evolution, yes with some inconsistencies, but it makes more logical sense according to what we know about the universe and nature than the Earth being the center of the Universe, being spun out of nothingness in six days, etc., etc. I mean, come on.

The Hetero vs. homo household comment is not facetious either. SCIENTIFIC evidence exists to point out that homosexuals taken as a whole group are less prone to aggressive tendencies, from spousal abuse to alcoholism. It is NOT an incorrect assertion.

And I didn't claim what Jester said was wrong/grey or whatever. What he said was that abortion should not be allowed, but would consider it under the circumstance of forced sexual intercourse. Soooo, that means abortion (i.e. murder) is ok under special circumstances. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of the statement. No offence to anyone, but abortion is NOT a grey area. Either a woman has control of her body (and yes a foetus is a parasite until born) or she doesn't, and that INCLUDES any external circumstances.

Having Muslim or Gaian prayers in a special class? I think that's called segregation, if I'm not mistaken? Outlawed? You bet. And the reason you don't hear about it? Because many of those in power are Christians, or what would be considered "conservative" which is a nice way of saying "stagnant", "change is bad", etc. And if I remember correctly, ALL Americans, be they celebrating Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, or Christmas, or whatever, are ALL entitled to the basic freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights and Constitution. To say otherwise enacts a gulf between those in power, and those without, which is what our country in reality is faced with.

I taught in a Minneapolis school for two years. Before that I was the school district's Networking Manager. I saw what goes on in schools. PUBLIC schools. And Minnesota is most decidedly conservative. There was a PUBLIC university in the same town. The first building was the "Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Resources" building, which obviously catered to students of a decidedly non-conservative bent. Every year out of the five I lived there, I heard nothing but complaints and threats about the people that building catered to. One year, several parents were found to have drive-by egged an openly homosexual professor's house. Now, are you going to tell me that conservative Christians in that area were tolerant, and acknowledged that professor's and the students who frequented that building's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

I think not.

P.S. The China/Saudi comment. They're not heterogenous societies, nor are they tolerant of other cultures. Nor do they paint themselves to be. America does. And America is most decidedly heterogenous in regards to cultures. Remember they ole "no taxation without representation..." line? I wonder if a cross-section of Congress accurately reflects the percentage mix of cultures in the USA? Probably not as well. So depressing.

[Gambit]

BTW - look how much Saddam was hurt by the sanctions: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/food.for.oil.ap/index.html

Note also how much help we got/are getting from the UN in this investigation. Hmm... wonder why?

[Kaleban]

Amazing how that CNN story uses Russians as the "big bad bear" who helped Saddam and in turn helped themselves.

The USA has more claws in Iraq than Russia, France, and the E.U. combined, plus our ability to assist in subversion is much greater. Don't tell me you actually believe that the USA is truthfully not involved at the highest level in the big, bad, Saddam debacle?

P.S. That story doesn't make any special mention of U.N. involvement, except for one line out of the whole thing. And since it was their initiative, I would expect them to be heavily involved in investigating. Of course, there is the line about the brave Republican senator being mightily angered at the U.N. (a huge conglomeration of countries and bureacracy) for not ponying up ALL information in the very beginning stages of the probe. Might Mr. Coleman do the same for the FEMA money that went to Miami, which had less than 5% of the hurricane damage for the state, and that restricted to loss of shingles, all the while people in the direct path and homeless receive meager home allowance checks of $500 to $600 one time benefits to house and feed a family of four?

Of course, Miami voted in large part Republican, but we won't go into that. Considering that they have traditionally voted Democrat... D'OH we won't go into that... FEMA money spent on big screen TVs... D'OH!

P.S. Here's a blurb from the religion in schools article:

"The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org."

HMMMM... Imagine them being interested in suing against teaching ABOUT another religion. Kids learn by doing. Now while I agree that teaching the religion AS religion would be wrong, a three week course showing "the other side" as it were in no way is indoctrination. A course like this might show children, the future, that while people hold different beliefs and speak differently, they're still people, not a statistic on the 6 o'clock news, nor the "towelheads" that Daddy keepes ranting about. I'm for it, and would encourage them to learn not only aboust Islam, but Judaism, the major sects of Christianity, perhaps some the Polynesian religions, etc., etc. Gives children a wider view of the world, and probably teaches tolerance. Of course, "conservatives" would term it indoctrination, but Christians don't indoctrinate anyone. Ok, time for church, just like EVERY Sunday at the same time...

[Gambit]

Debate rules:
We're not going formal. I'm telling you you're arguing in an unreasonable fashion. If we're going to do that, then this is a pointless discussion and should be closed. I'm finding your rhetoric rather uncalled-for. Can we discuss things civilly, or not?

Mormons/Scripture/Scientific fact:
I didn't say that the Bible is full of purely scientific fact. I didn't say I can prove that the Red Sea was parted for Moses, or the like. However, archaeologists for years have used the Bible as a reference for finding lost cities, and you know what? They find 'em right where they're supposed to be. That's one example. There are many others. In contrast, the Book of Mormon states than while Jesus was in America, the natives were riding horses, and that there were named cities in specific places. Not only have none of these cities ever been found, but the Spaniards brought horses with them after Columbus - they were not here earlier. It's chock full of stuff like that. THIS is the scientific evidence I was referring to.

Now, who's ignorant? Remember, you said it first.

Scientific studies: You mention research and studies, but you have yet to provide a single reference to anything. I've at least provided some links and offered references, true? How in the world can you argue effectively with or against a statement that "studies have shown?" You know, Microsoft-funded studies have shown that Linux costs more than Windows, while everyone else's show otherwise. Go figure. Give me some data, and we'll discuss it.

I didn't say "special classes." I said "special programs," and what I meant was similar to the traditional Christmas play. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You know that the people who egged the professor's house were Christians... how? One, your assertion as written above implies that because they were anti-gay, they were Christians. You offer no other information in that regard. Two, as I've said earlier, just because you go to a Christian church, or your parents did, doesn't make you a Christian. Thirdly, as you noted, they obviously weren't acting in a Christ-like manner. Fourthly, I don't recall "tolerance" being taught anywhere in the Bible. I do see lots of "forgiveness" and "love," however. In case you need a definition for love, here's one:
Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God's love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].
It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but rejoices when right and truth prevail.
Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].
Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end].

-1 Corinthians 13
The Amplified Bible

[Gambit]

Regarding the Muslim in schools thing: They're not just teaching about Islam, they're teaching Islam. So, they get three weeks of that, learning the pillars of Islam and saying Muslim prayers. Does the Christian segment make the kids, even the Muslim ones, memorize the Ten Commandments and saying the Lord's Prayer in class? How about the Jewish program? I'll bet money the Muslims parents would completely freak, and be even less tolerant than what you've observed from other segments of the population. But it'll never happen.

Did you see that they were having the kids play at JIHAD? Even Christian schools don't teach kids to play at the Crusades, y'know, let alone public ones.

BTW, I can find less, er, strongly opinionated versions of that story, if you'd like. I ran across several in my search.

[Kaleban]

"The Amplified Bible?" What is that?

First, I knew the people that did the drive by egging were Christians due to the fact that they went to indoctrination every Sunday, it was a small town, and EVERYONE there was Christian. The fact that most did not participate shows restraint, but absolutely no one except the university "community" showed outrage at the incident. I saw smugness, satisfaction, and other nasty emotions running through the community.

As to the Muslim parents freaking, so what? No one would care or notice, as you said, because they are a minority, no one is willing to fight for them, especially in times such as now. The Muslim parents might raise concerns if their children were taught about Christianity, but in the end, they would have no recourse, because the system is biased against them. Its NOT a two-way street. Although, in my experience, the Islamic religion is quite a bit more tolerant in practice, its only the right wing nutjobs of Islam that bomb things. Just like the right wing nutjobs here, who are usually fire and brimstone Christians of one stripe or another.

You ever play RISK!...? That's a board game, played with dice, to simulate conquering the world. I believe in the article, there was no mention of wrapping tablecloths around their heads, making mock AK-47s, and terrorizing the school. They simulated it with a DICE game. You need to stop looking for things between the lines and look at articles like this objectively.

And I have no recall of the last time a "special program" akin to a Christmas play allowed students of religions OTHER than Christianity a chance to pray or showcase their religion. Hell, you can't watch television or go to a movie for more than five minutes without seeing CHRISTMAS ads, but I haven't seen any Hanukkah ads or the like.

Look, its common sense. The country was founded on Puritanical values, much more strict than Christianity itself. Over time, its mellowed some, but there is a core group that espouses "morality" over tolerance and education. School boards and PTAs trying to change the curriculum to more closely follow religious texts, or to get rid of scientific principles altogether because it doesn't conform to the will of God, these types are all over the "Heartland" of America. Its called the heartland because it doesn't change. It espouses ignorance over knowledge, morality over tolerance and compassion, and other ugly "virtues" that modern, educated peoples realize is stagnant and hurtful to a healthy society.

Lastly, quoting scripture as proof is just laughable. You take even remedial history, and one of the first things they teach is the fact that the Bible, while being one of the oldest documents, is so fraught with changes, alterations, and other issues that it is NOT possible to take it at face value. Its also wildly vulnerable to interpretation. The last line in the Corinthians quote says:

"Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].
Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end]."

To me, that means tolerance almost to a T, loving somebody for all their faults and greatnesses regardless of circumstance. Whether its brother to brother, husband and wife, or husband and husband, et al, doesn't matter.

And yeah, if you want me to go surf the Net looking for all sorts of documents to prove I'm right, only to be contradicted by scripture quotes, well that's a waste of time. These types of arguments/dialogues are all personal opinion anyways, and no matter what quotes we use, better men than we have argued this and STILL failed to resolve or convince each other. Doesn't mean we still cannot try, but as I've said, when you have friends such as the gang here at THZ who ARE openly gay, but refuse to recognise their right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness guaranteed to them as citizens of the country because your outdated religion says you're not supposed to, well that's just silly.

Will you really take orders from a group of people who at one time, SOLD indulgences to the rich, to make themselves live a life of comfort while the peasantry lay dieing from starvation? Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism has been responsible for more tragedy in history than ANY other reason. That in itself is enough to make me doubt the wisdom of priests and ANY religion. Plus, I cannot believe that a God, if he/she exists, would not want us to exercise our minds and abilities that were given to us, rather than just sit around in stupefied prayer.

Look at it this way: genetic manipulation. We're not interfering in God's plan, its monstrously presumptuous to think we can. Humans don't invent new things, they only discover what was placed there by God. So if that's the case, then genetic engineering is a tool given to us by God to help improve our own lot in life. To NOT use it would be to throw it in God's face.

Whatever, I'm tired and going to bed.. Good as always, arguing with you guys, especially you Gambit! ;)

[Ghryphen]

I've only been barely viewing this thread, we staying good in here or is it time for closing arguments?

[Stang]

Ok guys maybe we need to talk a breather now kinda seems like things are going a little down hill.

You guys feel so differently about things are you really going to change eachother? I doubt it. Its great to see the arguements from both sides but not to the point where we will end up lossing people around here. It's obvious you guys are on the opposite side of the fence but lets not calling people names and getting bad. We been friends way too long and don't need religion and politics to ruin it.

[Steele]

Kaleban is a big fat fart head...Jester has a stinky butt...and Stang...yer a...well you know...

[Kaleban]

Hmmm... I thought I smelled somethin, must be the green gas cloud hovering about my planetoid of a cranium! ;) Just watched "So I Married an Axe Murderer" hehe.

I agree. Political beliefs and such are not something to ruin friendships over, I just feel very strongly as you all can probably tell. I just feel, I think at the core of the argument, is the gay marriage thing, and it just bugs the crap outta me that an event that has no effect on people outside those directly involved is in such heated contention. The banning of it directly circumvents secular law as established in this country.

Alright no more, I'm done. I'll march on Washington for Gay Rights, but I'm not gonna post about it anymore among friends. You all know where I stand, and I respect your beliefs even if I don't share them.

Damn, now I need to go blast something with my mortar... ;)

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

and it just bugs the crap outta me that an event that has no effect on people outside those directly involved is in such heated contention

Me too. :|

[Cerberus]

There was no name calling in my post.. I must not have hit submit, Hrm, I put a lot of thought into that one.

[Gambit]

The point I most want to continue with is the validity of the Bible section, but I'll refrain. An interested party can open one of those, or perhaps I will later. I will close this one with a simple answer to a question you asked.

The Amplified Bible is a version where words from the original language (Greek, in the quote above) are translated in multiple ways to make the meaning of the original word clearer. Usually at least one of them is modernized substantially over the original English King James Version, for example, since some of those words have lost their meaning from the days of Olde English. :) The printed version is hardly a small volume, though, and while easy to understand it is awkward to read from.

As I have been careful to not raise any controversial points in this post and thus extend the discussion, I'm fine with closing it.

[Kaleban]

That makes me curious. I spent a lot of time in Asia when I was younger, and learned some Japanese and Chinese.

As pictographical languages, the meanings of "words" are both complex, multifaceted and very poetic, making direct translation near impossible.

Is Greek the same way? And was the "original" Bible written in Aramaic? I'm curious about stuff like this, and its neat to find people who know about it.

[Ravok99]

All I gotta say about Kerry is a simple fact: At one point he says he would not have done ANYTHING different than Bush did. On other point, he said he would remove all American troops from Iraq, and push it off to the U.N. - a major factor for why the U.N. did NOT want to get involved. They can't afford to work against terrorist cells; it would most likely rip Europe to shreds as these guys are seen as supporting the Jewish/American Infidels - and Europeans become prime targets for extremists that would use that as an excuse for entering Heaven.

So... I didnt see any potential resolution to the situation that Kerry could really talk about. He would most likely confuse the situation.

On the religious front. That is a tricky and personal issue; religion is like that. However, I am tired of the "Everyone else is cool, but those Christians are real trash." kind of sentiments I have received over my lifespan. I have a very open mind, I don't step on other people for what they feel is right, but dang, there are really two choices when it comes to government support of abortion. Either we allow people to have as much sex as they want and kill off the 'unwanteds' - or we deal some respect to the outcome of sex, and support the idea that those little cells are someone important.

I know my own vote on that issue, but I can't justify other folks or their beliefs. That is not what a vote is about. Its about saying what our society stands behind in a collective effort, and what a single opinion can mean to a group. That is a vote.

I think Bush is an OK guy to do the job for the next 4 years. I am uncertain what Kerry truly sought to accomplish, as his agenda was very spread out, and, as Gambit said, seemed to say, "Don't worry, Uncle Sam will do it all."

That statement worries me. I doubt I could ever hope to rely on a massive government to completely handle all of my needs. I have to earn my keep, and work to secure my own needs. That is capitalism. So, what was Kerry supporting?

[Cerberus]

The Texts of the Bible, are written in several languages, Hebrew, Aramaic etc.. The Bible has been translated in to Greek, the Septanguiant, and into Latin, the Vulgate.. so there are a ton of languages in Biblical history, i have a NT that is written in Arabic Script. :D I think the various books of the Bible were assembled in to their current order and copmplilation (Canon?) in around 300AD

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

There were actually several compilations that floated around. There was much argument over which things should go into the "bible", each of those early books differed in what aspects of what we call the Old Testament should carry over from the Jewish texts. And there was talk over how much of ancient Hebrew mythology should be included in this text (cherubim, seraphim, nephalim for example... they are three types of "angels", yet they aren't mentioned more than in passing in much of the Bible). Realize also that those names are derivatives of their ancient hebrew names. And there was talk in how much of each book should be included in the Old Testament.

The New Testament was a bit different because most of the books refer to Jesus in some way. Most of these were also written in Greek, while simultaneously written in Aramaic. But the content of the NT only differed in which aspects of Jesus' life the priesthood wanted to pass on. The church at this time was still quite small, so there wasn't as much argument.

[Cerberus]

Which part of the NT was written in Greek? All of Paul's letters were written in Hebrew, the Gospels were written in Hebrew, I think the General Letters were written in Hebrew, The only one I am not sure about is Revelation. But if you hold to the tradition that John the Revelator is the Apostle John then that one should have been in original Hebrew.

[yak]

DOWN WITH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gambit]

Yak, you are welcome to participate, but being inflammatory is not.


Asha, the early church didn't have a priesthood. Leaders, yes, but not ANYTHING like the Catholics later had or the Jews traditionally had. Yes, though, there has been much discussion about which writings went in and which writings didn't. We can get into that elsewhere if you like or leave as-is.


Jester, nearly all the NT was written in Greek originally - remember who wrote most of it (Paul) and that he wrote mostly to Gentiles, not Jews, so especially Paul's letters. He was well-educated and a Roman citizen. John was apparently writing to a Greek audience. Luke was a physician and wrote using Greek for its precision. Matthew wrote in Greek but his audience seems to have been Jewish. The common language Jesus spoke was indeed Aramaic, and Mark translates some of these words into Greek for his Roman readership.

I think all the OT was Hebrew. Certainly mostly. (Ah, according to some info I just found, there are some Aramaic passages here and there.)

"Greek was the language of Alexander's empire and so the language of the East under the Romans. It was the common language of the New Testament writers." http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/languages.htm

[Cerberus]

hrm didn't know that, i'll look more into it.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Eh... what I meant by preisthood was that the followers of Christ (they weren't called Christians until later), were led by those that studied what the 12 Disciples did and taught. It wasn't a formal preisthood as you would think in terms of the Catholic church and such, but it was a preisthood that closely (as far as we can tell) tried to follow what Peter and Paul had written. There wasn't exactly a formal book to give to churches or those that wished to form a church to describe how a church should function, what it should do, what ceremonies to perform, and so on. Many of the churches inferred what to do after the deaths of Peter and Paul (they were the most vocal), and also John, from what they had written and what they had instructed churches to do. Take communion for example. It was originally supposed to be a symbolic ceremony celebrating Christ's last supper. He didn't take the bread and wine he gave his followers and transform it into his own flesh and blood. Yet that's how the Catholic Church, and offshoots of the Catholic Church, performed the Communion ceremony. It wasn't like that in the early days of the what we call christianity. (This is in large part to the influence of Roman religion on Christianity to create the Roman Catholic Church.) The ceremony was performed in remembrance of Christ... as a way to recall to each and every Christian that Christ's last night on earth was not spent worrying, retaliating, or doing anything except celebrating what life there was left to Him. Christ led by example, and taught throught metaphorical stories, which are both the reasons that Christianity became so popular.

Regardless of whether you believe the Christ knew he was going to die the next day, you have to realize that he thoroughly enjoyed his life and time with his friends.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Oh and here is an interesting page. I'm not going to comment on it now...

http://www.biblestudysite.com/history.htm#5

[Ravok99]

There's a lot of stuff in here; and I won't go into every detail discussed. However, the idea that Bush basis his decisions on a 'Christian vote' if you want to call it that; which is fair, because he does to a healthy extent. He is open about it, and let's the population decide if his policies are worthy of his office.

How a president bases their decisions is key to understanding what a president will do under a set of circumstances, and whether or not we agree with those decisions on a personal level. I saw no thread of continuity in Kerry's decisions, whether the Bible was written in two or three different languages or not.

You can refute all kinds of Biblical issues, I frankly wouldn't care if the Bible was written in Egyptian. The book is worthy reading, because it has influenced history, and has helped people further define things like, History, Science, and Rational Thinking.

Whether or not you believe in God is insignificant to the power of the words in the book. Now, I happen to think that those guys take the Bible seriously, because if they didn't - they would break the book's own Commandment not to "give false testimony". So, either the book stands to reason, or it fails because its full of liars.

OK - I can deal with that. It is still a book worthy of reading without worrying whether religion is going to get shoved down your throat.

Frankly, that Bush uses the book as a guideline for his behavior can mean a lot of different things; all sorts of people have laid such claims. To know what the man really believes and decides you need to dig into his record, and not into his claims. I feel that Bush handled a national threat of multiple airline attacks upon civilian and government employees and citizens with an action based on the intelligence known at the time. War on terror? Can it be won? Ask if people can change in Belfast, or if people can change in Germany, or if people can change in Russia, and if history will constantly repeat or if we get any better over time.

I say that question cannot be answered in the brief amount of time terrorism has upscaled to its present state. Tomorrow is not a set of variables easily defined by cause and effect, because at this point in history, old grudges and new grudges are mingling at a startling rate. We have cause to worry about every issue being discussed. Each issue is someone's life.

As Christians we are taught to care about someone's life. Its an eternal gift of soul that is imparted to every human being on the planet. If that is a bad set of teachings and just a buncha bad philosophy, so be it - I prefer to accept the possibility, and to use it as a springboard to understanding that when I fall short (sin) against one of my brothers in this life, someone gets hurt. I messed it up. My bad. I cannot be perfect in my actions, but I can work to atone with my brother, and in hope we can move beyond the hurt I re-created into the world. This is taking responsibility for my actions, and whether it is a temporary benefit, or an eternal partaking; I don't see much difference in idealogies.

[Gambit]

The ceremony was performed in remembrance of Christ... as a way to recall to each and every Christian that Christ's last night on earth was not spent worrying, retaliating, or doing anything except celebrating what life there was left to Him. Christ led by example, and taught throught metaphorical stories, which are both the reasons that Christianity became so popular.

I don't think the Last Supper was as much of a celebration of the past as a memorial. He said, when He gave the bread and wine, "This do in rememberance of Me." I will grant that He loved the disciples and enjoyed His time with them, and there very well may have been some of that in there. And while you're right, he didn't worry, the death that He knew was coming was far from pleasant and weighed upon Him that last night. Did you know that the bit about how He sweated blood while praying in the garden was taken as just a figure of speech until relatively recently, when doctors dicovered that during times of extreme stress the capillaries can actually burst and blood can leak into the sweat glands?

But as to the reason that Christianity became so popular, I would say that it was, and is, the fact that He is alive and empowers his followers, unlike religions that worship an abstract ideal, the pattern of planets & stars, or someone long dead. The fact that our God is one that is powerful enough to have created the universe and yet still cares deeply about us as individuals. These are the things that set Christianity apart from everything else.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

But as to the reason that Christianity became so popular, I would say that it was, and is, the fact that He is alive and empowers his followers, unlike religions that worship an abstract ideal, the pattern of planets & stars, or someone long dead. The fact that our God is one that is powerful enough to have created the universe and yet still cares deeply about us as individuals. These are the things that set Christianity apart from everything else.

Sort of...

Let me explain. You believe, and those that follow your religion also believe, that Christ is still alive only He rose to heaven and no longer walks the earth. Now, take Mohammed, the prophet and founder of Islam... he has been long dead, yet is considered just as holy as Christ is. The only difference is that Christ was considered the son of God, while Mohammed is considered the last true prophet of God. Muslims would say that Mohammed is THE holiest, besides the one God Allah. Christians would say that Christ is THE holiest besides God the Father. As a Christian, I very much doubt that you would place Mohammed on equal or greater footing than Christ. And a Muslim would not put as much honor on Christ as they would Mohammed. God is still God in both religions eyes.

But both men are dead, and anyone outside of Christianity would probably have a hard time believing that Christ rose from the dead. Muslims acknowledge Christ as a person that spoke God's word, from what I know of Islam, but they still place a greater emphasis on Mohammed. So you saying that "as to the reason that Christianity became so popular, I would say that it was, and is, the fact that He is alive and empowers his followers, unlike religions that worship an abstract ideal, the pattern of planets & stars, or someone long dead.", has little truth to someone outside of Christianity. You can't say that you're right because you are Christian.


I personally still contend that Christianity became so popular because it appealled to more people (and still does) than most other religions. Islam may be the exception to that, as may Buddhism. Many people from the middle east could identify with Islam (especially since it began where Arabs began), just as many people in southwest Asia could identify with Buddhism (which incorporates traditions and ideas particular to that region). Buddhism and Islam have just as high moral qualities as Christianity, which is probably the reason that both are still around. That is, on top of the fact that all three have "warrior-monk" types (please note the quotation marks ;) ).

Maybe this discussion belongs in another thread, but I'm too lazy to transfer it over to another, and it seems that the majority of the conversation has drifted this way. Plus, it still semi-relates to the thread topic through Bush's statements that his decisions come from his religious views. (Personally, I think that's AWESOME, what I find a bit disconcerting is that he expects others to believe as he does through his actions and policies. A big example of this would be Powell's resignation this last week.... you take a look at the cabinet, or cabinet-select folks and they are ALL people that are in line with Bush's ideas... there will be VERY little dissent if any... there may not be anyone there to say, "Mr. President, your idea is not going to work... or there is a tremendous downside to that policy.")

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Oh and I think you misunderstood me when I was talking about Communion. ;)

[Gambit]

Quite possible about the Communion misunderstanding.

And I realize that not everyone does or will believe as I do, and that any evidence that I would present to support those statements would probably start their own lively discussions. Still, I find it compelling enough to believe it is the truth, and put my trust there and to stand by it.

[Kaleban]

Quite possible about the Communion misunderstanding.

And I realize that not everyone does or will believe as I do, and that any evidence that I would present to support those statements would probably start their own lively discussions. Still, I find it compelling enough to believe it is the truth, and put my trust there and to stand by it.

Gambit, I'm asking this not to start another political argument, but just to know.

Assume for the moment that you are President. You seem to be a person of good moral character, and on top of that, a very fervent Christian. Would you, as President, sign into law a bill stating that gay marriage is illegal in totality, affirming your belief that marriage is for a man and a woman only?

The effect being that civil unions even between homosexual partners are outlawed, and anyone who is homosexual and in a relationship cannot be given the legal rights of a spouse, even if they live with each other for ten, twenty, or more years.

This same situation can be asked of many policies, but what it comes down to is do you make laws based on your religious beliefs, or what you think is fair and just for the myriad numbers of cultures, religions, orientations and sexualities that you preside over as leader of the free world?

JFK was an excellent example of a man who could draw the line between what was best for his beliefs, and what was best for the overall good of a country, and he was Catholic. My main concern with Bush is that ALL of his decisions are with religion at the forefront, and now so is it the same with the rest of the governmental branches.

[Gambit]

If I were the President - and it's not exactly an ambition of mine - yikes.

I'd probably, if faced with a situation like this, look for a solution that keeps the label "marriage" for man-woman unions, and try to figure out some way to allow insurance and tax status for "civil unions." I can't say I'm happy with that. I don't see how it makes any of the various groups with a stake in the issue happy, but it gives everyone a little of what they want. It's a politically expedient solution, and politics is the art of compromise. I'd like to be able to be in that position and say, no, this is wrong, it shouldn't be this way, but I might very well cave. Some things shouldn't be compromised, some things should, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

A President has to represent the whole country, whatever their beliefs or backgrounds. He also has to lead them, sometimes to a place they don't want to go. Some Presidents do the former, and are well-liked during their tenure but tend to let things "run down" on their watch because they're saying "yes" to everything and don't make the necessary tough decisions. Some do the latter, and are usually hated while in office and might be loved or hated in history. Some Presidents strike more of a balance.

[Ravok99]

I hit some of this stuff in my religion rant; so you know that if I was the Pres. I would look at what is best for the country, so that the definition of the institution takes into account a lot of issues.

Currently, the divorce rate is so sky high, marriage as an institution has completely deteriorated. It is extremely under-valued, and I have seen women use it as a means of self support. I.E. - they seek men that will impregnate them, then sue for custody, child support, etc - then use that money to sustain themselves with a single stay at home mother and a family of around 3 - 5 children; then - as the children grow older, they push the kids hard to support their loving mother.

So - in lieu of these sorts of manipulative uses of the law - what can define marriage? If I was President, I would have to say that a single family unit is the strongest possible use of the institution, and would most likely support that function - as it builds up consistency in the economy by supporting that. However, the populace - in its view of freedoms - has consistently worn down that approach. Do I, as President, accept the weaker definition of marriage, a definition that is economically less viable than the optimum of a single long-term family unit?

That is really the question to pose. How can society support an institution of marriage by law, when it - as a populace - has degraded the institution to the point that most marriages don't last?

Therefore, re-defining it for others that wish to be recognized as a part of that institution seems to me, as just another manipulation of law - because most of the populace does not adhere to their own marriage contracts.

[Kaleban]

Unfortunately, the bigger question, apart from gold-digging spouses (and they're both male and female in my experience), and this concern is usually voiced by both hetero and homo groups with established long term relationships, is what benefits do the spouses have?

For example, a gay man cannot technically contest a family's claim of property as next of kin, since he cannot get "married" and therefore has no claim even if his partner willed it to him after thirty or forty years of co-habitation.

And it goes further. There are many benefits conferred upon married couples, from tax benefits, insurance benefits, and others that gay couples cannot enjoy simply because of a law that is being pushed by homophobic old white males. I can't imagine what a closeted gay senator must feel like right about now, especially if he's a democrat!

So the current regime has seen fit to make their views clear: gays will not be tolerated. Its the segregation attitude, and it makes gay people LESS than people, since there are laws specifically targeting their sexual orientation. What's next, making it illegal for gays to drink from public water fountains because homophobic senators believe you can get AIDS from the spigot? Its a crock.

And Gambit, let me give you a scenario that could act as a compromise, but I'll then tell you why it will never be accepted.

Eliminate the institution of marriage as a legally binding agreement. Establish civil unions as the basis for a legally bound co-habitation, and don't limit it. If some dude wants to "union" with his plant, then that's his business. Give all the rights currently under the purview of marriage to the civil union. Eliminate all terminology that causes the civil union to have religious overtones. Marriage, being a religious institution, is the purview of religion, not the state, so this means gays cannot get married, keeping the rabid gap-toothed hicks happy, but allows the gays to have the benefit and recognition they seek. Thus, everyone is happy, and everyone gets what they want.

Now the reason it won't happen. There IS discrimination in this country, not made more clear than by the overwhelming support of the gay marriage ban enacted in many states. That is segregation, discrimination, and a direct violation of civil rights. And now, with some of the most fire and brimstoney right wing nutjobs in office EVER, they will see to it that gays are "purged" if they could, and only public outcry will at least allow the homosexual community a shred of decency.

I am ashamed and appalled to be called an American these days, what with all the religious pomposity in our government, and the fake patriotism that is bred of fear of the system. I've said time and again, that John Carpenter is a visionary, and his vision of a future America where the President is a man who must pray before every decision is here... NOW. I don't mean to be rude to anyone, but this is unacceptable. America is a secular nation, populated by many different groups of cultures and belief systems. To eschew all others in favour of one is both wrong, and hypocritical, given the fact of the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, two documents lauded by politicians, but butchered at every turn to further political agendas.

/rant.

[Gambit]

You are, as I've said before, entitled to your opinion. I would, however, like to note something.

The United States is a representative democracy. A republic. (In a true democracy, everyone would vote on every issue.) But we DO get to vote on our leaders, choosing the one we think is the best one for the job. So, pretty much, the majority rules, but if a leader just follows the polls, he's not really a leader, is he/she?

You know what? I didn't much like eight years of Clinton. He said and did a lot of things that I certainly would be ashamed of, and I didn't want the head of my country doing. But NONE of what he did ever made me say "I'm ashamed to be an American." The United States is MUCH more than the presidency, or the legislature, or the Supreme Court, or the people who hold those positions. It's more than the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the New York Times.

If you don't like something about America, you're a citizen and have the right - perhaps the duty - to speak your mind and work to change it. That's one of the things that makes it a great country. Please understand that there's plenty of things I don't like about it too.

You need to realize that when you say you're ashamed to be an American, you're saying you're ashamed of all those orientations and ethnicities and cultures, the great melting pot, that you're griping about being stomped upon and have the same right to vote as everyone else.
If you're ashamed to be an American, then you have the right - and my invitation - to stop being one.

[Kaleban]

As you said, the President represents for better or worse America as a whole. There's a mighty big difference between what I said and what you're interpreting, much like religion, there's always room for error.

What I meant, was that the principles upon which the country was founded, and all the struggles and birthing pains of a relatively new nation are consistently forgotten by Americans as a whole. I know many Americans who failed American history, and yet foreigners know more about both their homeland and their "adopted" homeland than anyone else. It makes me sad when I see natural born Americans grumbling about having to take time off to go vote, while the store clerk they're bitching to would give dearly to be able to exercise the same power in his or her own country.

What makes me ashamed is the palpable aura if you will of entitlement that many Americans share. The country is over 300 million people censused (word?) with many more not counted. Of that, how many have fought in wars, defended their country, raised their voice in political rallies, or done anything to distinguish themselves from the herd?

From my vantage point, a good portion of the country is covered in sloth. How many total votes were there? about 35 million? That means it only took 1/10th the country's population to elect its president. And that was accompanied by voting failures, discrepancies and problems just like the last election. What if EVERY American suddenly had a surge of civic duty and voted?

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not ashamed to be a part of something that stands for honor, truth, liberty, freedom, virtue, and other good qualities. What I AM ashamed of is that these values over time have been twisted and perverted to serve political and business expediency and to turn massive profits for the privileged few. What so many Americans were duped on is that ole G.W. is just as rich, if not more so than Senator Kerry, even with his wife backing him? But they showed him off as a good ole boy, and it worked, because the majority of people that vote are under-educated, ignorant, or elderly, which says wonders about our education system in itself.

Here's an article that is both very funny and terribly tragic in its poignancy:

http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4045.php

P.S. Again, Gambit, I'm not trying to be venomous or anything. But while America is more than its offices, and the laws of the land, those two things represent America to both the nation itself and other peoples. I suppose the best way to put it is this:

If YOU were unhappy with the way things were being run, what options do you have? So far, I've been told to like it or leave it, which as we civilized forum goers know is a very bad attitude. Especially in a democracy. Of which we're supposed to have a voice.

A list of things I'm ashamed of as an American:
1. The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton - nothing more than a high priced episode of Jerry Springer, with Ken Starr as the ringleader.
2. The outcry over Janet Jackson's slip - a bunch of uptight people taking a stunt far too seriously.
3. The FCC crackdown on radio, and the further censoring of public media.
4. The Iraq war - good people are involved and dying on both sides, while no concrete plans are made for elimination of threats or extraction.
5. The actual banning of gay marriage in several states, directly contravening the Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness guaranteed to every citizen. A secular law based of religious principle.
6. The downward plunge the country is headed for, culturally, economically, and heck every factor that matters. Freedom is not free, and we must all at one time make a stand against tyranny and oppresion, but what are your choices when your fight (such as gay marriage) is overwhelmingly unpopular? Should all homosexuals move out of the country if they don't like it? Rediculous.
7. The fact that even though we're an enlightened democracy, our leaders are still old white men groomed for office, who have no real care for their constituents beyond how much they can help pad their wallets.

I'm not saying America is the worst country, compared to many its the best, but if we're going to set ourselves as the moral and cultural bastion of the world, we should check to make sure our accounts are not bankrupt in those areas first.

[edit] P.P.S. I'm also pretty sure Clinton during his eight years never tried to pass legislation that would abolish the civil rights of a specific group of people. Which is what Bush and his cabinet of neo-conservative Christians are trying and succeeding at doing. There was another man in history, famous for his persecution of a certain group of people within his own country's population, but I won't mention the H-word out loud.

[DooMKitty]

Down with bush eh? well who won the election? :rocket:

[Stang]

Again guys don't do the bashing in this thread. We are keeping it civilized and respectful. Make another thread if you need to bash like that.

If you watched the news or picked up a paper you'd know who won :P.

We still don't have a governor in our state :D.