PDA

View Full Version : (Non-Football) Shame on Rev. Graham


Archie F. Swin
01-20-2001, 11:11 AM
Let me first state that I have no ill will toward President George Bush on his day of inauguration.


I must however show my disfavor of Reverend Graham for not using proprer discretion in closing his invocation.

He ended his prayer as any Baptist preacher would by "Asking these things in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit . . . in Jesus' name we pray . . . (and so on, and so on)

By doing this he distanced this moment in American history from the Jews, from the Muslims, from the Buddists and from those Americans that do not thank Jesus for salvation. Americans that, regardless of faith or creed, contribute to the American way, and make this country strong.

I consider myself objective when it comes to politics and politicians, but this was a time for Republicans and those of faith to welcome all Americans into the Bush Presidency.

It seems this is what Democrats fear, the recognition of only a chosen American demographic.

[Edited by Chief Red Pants on 01-20-2001 at 07:24 PM]

JOhn
01-20-2001, 11:19 AM
CRP,
I hear and understand what you are saying....BUT
this country WAS founded on Christian beliefs, and to stray from those at this point would be wrong, and seen as pandering.

IMHO

ChiefsFanatic
01-20-2001, 11:19 AM
And to think, I objected to Lieberman. Bush also said in his speech that we were all lead by a higher power. I feel very strongly about seperation of church and state.

It just makes me angry to think that the government thinks they should be able to get away with saying things like that. Graduating seniors can't refer to God or pray at their graduation, but the President and his cronies can interject religion into a day that is supposed to be all-american.

Hey President Bush, enjoy these 4 years. Watcha gonna do when Daddy dies?

Hey republicans, enjoy the next four years. I imagine by then our school textbooks will have been replaced with the bible, and we won't be able to do anything about it because the nuns will all have Mac 10s.

ChiefsFanatic
01-20-2001, 11:21 AM
This country was not founded on Christian beliefs. This country was founded on the premise that all should be free to worship as they please. The freaking pilgrams were fleeing religious persecution. Revisit some history books.

soliday
01-20-2001, 11:42 AM
John,
Which Christian beliefs? You mean the Christian belief that led to women being burned as witches? Or the Christian belief that allowed Blacks to be owned because they were "heathens"? Or the Christian belief that it was allright to slaughter, and rob, and voilate treaty after treaty with those "heathen" Native Americans? Is it the Christian belief that churches shouldn't have to pay taxes? Or how 'bout the Christian belief that put Galileo on trial for speaking the scientific truth?

I can do without all those Christian beliefs.

Soliday

morphius
01-20-2001, 11:51 AM
Let me say that I don't believe that the seperation of Church and State ever meant that peoples religion should never be a part of gov't. Just that the gov't can't tell you what religion to practice and that it can't stop you from practicing your religion unless of course it believes in human sacrifice and the such.

Anyway, there are reasons it says "In God we Trust".

Frazod
01-20-2001, 12:12 PM
Geez, from the opening prayer you guys are up in arms.

You've got at least four years, guys. You really should pace yourselves. :D

Did you really expect Billy Graham to kneel on a prayer rug or chant "hari hari"? Give me a break.

Brock
01-20-2001, 12:29 PM
The founding fathers were for the majority, Deists.

Bob Dole
01-20-2001, 12:37 PM
<i>Obligatory Introductory Disclaimer: Nobody who knows this Bob Dole would characterize Bob Dole as a religious man. Additionally, they would not classify Bob Dole as a Republican.</i>

Not to sound like a broken record, but some folks need to go back and read through the Federalist Papers when discussing the foundation of our Republic.

Certainly we have "Freedom of Religion," but one must accept that such envisioned freedoms differ significantly from what many hold to be the norm in our present time, just as "...that all men are created equal" apparently did not include all segments of the world's population.

That said, one who reads nearly <i>anything</i> will find that the Founding Fathers considered religion, prayer and a higher power an important part of life. While they expressly created a seperation of church and state, they also credited a higher power and looked to such for guidance.

Keep in mind when reading that "Providence" was not used in reference to the city in Rhode Island.

Mosbonian
01-20-2001, 12:37 PM
First, it is Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. It means that you have the freedom to choose what beliefs you wish to follow(or not follow), but not to keep the next guy from his expression of religious belief.

To ask Reverend Graham to acquiese to pressures to "please the masses", would have been to suppress his freedom of expression of religious beliefs.

CF:

I doubt, considering the political and legal hysteria that the Democrats have created over religion and it's practice in the school system the last 10-15 years that wha you state in your post will ever come true. But then, a post like yours is the kind that good, bleeding heart liberals love to shout to "enrage the masses". I don't want someone teaching my child religious beliefs in school, but neither do I want someone legislating where he/she can practice them.

mark
*************

Rick Stephens
01-20-2001, 12:48 PM
What does our money say on it, "In God We Trust." Our founding fathers wanted a separation between church and government but firmly believed in a higher power.

Archie F. Swin
01-20-2001, 12:53 PM
Please don't take me wrong . . . i'm not suggesting that there should have not been an invocation. I truly believe that a higher power should be recognized and thanks should be given. I also would not expect Reverend Graham to deviate from his faith.

I'm stating that his invocation was for Christians, and that those people who contribute to the American way, by working hard and sharing ethical integrity who don't belive in Jesus were left out. Is that the American way? This was not a high school football game in Texas, this was a blessing upon America, as we welcome a new leader.

Bob Dole
01-20-2001, 12:55 PM
Bob Dole is deeply offended each time someone hands Bob Dole a dollar.

JOhn
01-20-2001, 12:58 PM
Soliday,
Get a grip, and Chill!!!!
I am very familer with history, anf the pilgrims were predominatly christian in there beliefs. Now as for there standards, they were just as "backward" as I'm sure ours will be considered in a couple of hundred years. Oh yea, I guess it was just republicans that killed native americans?? Or wait your saying that all people of the 17 & 1800's were "bad" christians?

Again, our founding fathers had a profund regard for christian beliefs, and to say otherwise is plain ABSURD!

As I stated allready, to have the Rev. to due otherwise would be considered pandering.

I guess we should drop the last part of the oath also?
"so help me God"

"In God we TRUST" (go read a dollar bill)

morphius
01-20-2001, 01:00 PM
CRP - You don't think that if a Muslim was to win that the invocation it wouldn't talk about Muhammad? If not I think you are mistaken.

Bob Dole
01-20-2001, 01:00 PM
No offense intended, CRP, but if someone noticed and took offense, it's likely that they were <b>looking</b> for a reason to take offense.

As Bob Dole stated in an earlier message, Bob Dole is not a religious man. Bob Dole hears the opening invocation as an expression of that individuals particular faith, simply calling for blessing from what that individual feels is the greatest power available for such blessing.

Bob Dole does not for a moment feel excluded from the request because of its direction and phrasing.

JOhn
01-20-2001, 01:03 PM
Morph, Dole,
Very well put.

I to am like mr Dole, I am not a very religious person, and really can't believe I'm arguing this point.

MrBlond
01-20-2001, 01:28 PM
I don't recall, but I am fairly certain that President Clinton inuaguration also ended in a prayer. Somewhere in that prayer Jesus was probably mentioned. In all the Clinton criticism (fair and unfair) I have yet to see him chastised for "distancing" that moment in history from anyone who does not believe in Christianity. I have specificaly heard Reverend Jesse Jackson invoke the name of Jesus Christ and I have yet to hear one negative word on the matter. I know hundreds, maybe thousands, of Democrats. I have heard their misgivings about Bush and Republicans, and they have never included the fear of religous persecution. The Republican party does have a fanatical right wing. Just as the Democratic party has a fanatical left. The vast majority of Americans... Christians, Muslims, Aethist, Jewish, Catholic, or other...have historicaly shown religous tolerance no matter who was in power. Tolerance that is the envy of the rest of world. So if someone was offended by Rev. Graham's use Jesus's name then grin and bear it. That is the cost of enjoying your own religous freedom.

BigOlChiefsfan
01-20-2001, 01:49 PM
Tolerance-the ability to recognize the other fella has the right to be wrong.

Note that I said fella. Everyone knows that women are never wrong.

Michael Michigan
01-20-2001, 02:27 PM
This is why I love libs. Once out of power they protest whine and cry at every turn.

Already whining about Christians.

I can't wait for the first columns to begin on the homeless, the destruction of the enviroment, et al.

Cannibal
01-20-2001, 02:44 PM
Just like the Right Wingers have been "whining" and "crying" for the last eight years and continue to do so even with Clinton out of office.

The Right Wingers have cornered the market on whining and crying.

Michael Michigan
01-20-2001, 03:02 PM
Cannibal-

Cornered the market? Yea, there were a ton of protest marches by the right.

Nice try, though.

KCWolfman
01-20-2001, 04:20 PM
Red Pants, you and Chiefs Fanatic are splitting hairs. Fanactic is obviously still distraught ovee the loss, get over it.

Red Pants - We also have money that says "In God We Trust", what about atheists and agnostics in our country.
We end our vows of office with "So Help Me God".
We promise to the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth "So Help Me God".
Are you stating that you only want those who believe in God represented today?

We can divide and divide all day long, or we can accept that our past is full of variety and have no problems in celebrating it as it was originally designed.

The better side of Christian beliefs are incorporated into our Constitution and our laws. It is the American Heritage, and we should be able to celebrate our heritage as much (actually more) than any other.

DaWolf
01-20-2001, 04:49 PM
As a person with differing religious beliefs than the Revrend Graham, I must admit I didn't give it a second thought. Everyone has the right to pray in the way they see appropriate. I certainly didn't feel excluded because I can and have said a prayer for America based on my religious beliefs. It is basically between the person saying it and God, IMO...

BigOlChiefsfan
01-20-2001, 05:46 PM
And leave us not forget that Billy is 81, has Parkinson's Disease, and basically came out of retirement to put in a good word for all of us, in his own fashion.

This'll teach him.

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 06:41 PM
CRP,
give me a break. Why should he pray any other way? Do you belive a Jew would have prayed in a way so as to make Muslims feel comfortable? Yeah, checks in the mail, and I'll respect you in the morning. If it had been a Jew or a Muslim, or any other religion, and they had prayed the way they normally prayed, no one would have said anything. But when a Christian gets up there and says the name of Jesus, OH NO, WE CAN"T HAVE THAT! THEY ARE TRYING TO PUSH THEIR RELIGION ON US! Liberals say they are the party of tolerance, unless you happen to be a Conservative or a Christian. As for reaching out to all people, did you not listen to Bush's speech? Have you not been listening to him since the election was decided? He says he is everyone's President, even those who did not vote for them. What more do you want? And as for what the dems fear about only recognizing one demographic, I have a point and a question for you. First of all, it is the Republicans who put him in office, he made promises to us. He therefore will be loyal to us, as a dem president would do for his base. Now the question. What have the dems done to make us feel welcome? They attack and lie about us, they push their agenda regardless of the fact that it does not make us feel welcome or wanted. You libs preach bi-partisanship, but what you mean is, you Republicans be bi-partisan and comprimise, and we get what we want. Why in earth should we do anything for you?

Archie F. Swin
01-20-2001, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by KCWolfman
accept that our past is full of variety and have no problems in celebrating it as it was originally designed.

Could you elaborate on that statement Wolf?

morph,
I honestly doubt a Muslim will win the Presidency in our lifetime. If he/she did, she/he would allow for a blessing open to all of faith.

Michael Michigan
read my thread again . . . if that is your idea of crying and whining than you probably refer to the editorial page of your newspaper the crying and whining page.

my idea of crying and whining is dumb language and a lot of exclamation points.

Archie F. Swin
01-20-2001, 07:13 PM
raiderhader

Once again . . . I don't feel what I typed was an all out attack on George Bush and Republicans. I cant quite understand why you and others constantly respond with messages of anger and defensiveness. I'm not here to fight . . . merely make observations. In a perfect world we'll have a President and Congress that works on behalf of all of us . . . but in this world it seems that The Clinton era will be looked at as a begining of a deep devide among Democrats and Republicans. It's a shame.

BTW BigOLChiefsfan, it was not 81 year old Billy Graham that gave the invocation.

JOhn
01-20-2001, 07:14 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CRP
morph,
I honestly doubt a Muslim will win the Presidency in our lifetime. If he/she did, she/he would allow for a blessing open to all of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




CRP,
WOW I'm impressed. You can forsee the future. GIve me a break, you have no idea who or what would be said if a person of another faith would win the election.

Do you really believe he has distanced himself anymore than Mr Clinton has done to alot of us allready?

DanT
01-20-2001, 07:27 PM
The Rev. Billy Graham gave the invocation. The benediction was given by Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. Here's the program for the swearing-in ceremony:

http://yp.washingtonpost.com/E/E/WASDC/0002/38/51/

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 07:31 PM
CRP,
you can't understand? Let me explain it for you so that you will be able to understand. We are malinged by the left. They say that they are "the party of tolerance", but that is not true. Quick example, they are tolerant of gays and their lifestyles, but when it comes to Christians we are attacked and called racist, bigoted, homophobes who want to suppress women and children (wich is a total crock). We happen to belive that homosexuality is a sin, but instead of tolerating our beliefs, we are treated the way you accuse us of treating others. Do you see the hypocrisy here? You do to us what you say we do to others. And it is quite alright for you to be judgemental of us, but heaven (sorry if that religious word offends you) forbid that we do this to others! We can do nothing right, but you people are the answer to prayer (again, sorry if that offends you). You self-rightous holier than thou hypocrites. So when ever I see someone say something like you did, I come out swinging. And you did not answer my question, what have the dems ever done for us? Instead of answering a question that you know the answer to will not be favorable to your argument, you come back at me with a defensive (exactly what you accused me of) reply. And one other thing, you said you were afraid that Clinton had left a deep divide between the parties. I hate to tell you this, but that divide has always been there, and always will be.

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 07:34 PM
DanT,
CRP is right in this one aspect, it was not BILLY, but his son who gave the invocation.

DanT
01-20-2001, 07:34 PM
The Rev. Billy Graham is 82 years old (b. 7Nov1918):

http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/graham01.html

DanT
01-20-2001, 07:40 PM
Oh, sorry about that. I was going by the program, but I guess they had to deviate from it, huh? I hope Rev. Graham (the elder) is ok.

ROYC75
01-20-2001, 07:40 PM
Either you believe in GOD or you don't! Your choice,To each his own,freedom to believe whatever religion you wish! I don't debate religion,just hold true to my beliefs!
I do not condem anyone about thier choice,just don't understand anything but what the bible tells me.

In the end we all will know,some will be happy and some will burn in the pits of HELL!

[Edited by ROYC75 on 01-20-2001 at 07:50 PM]

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 07:46 PM
Graduating seniors can't refer to God or pray at their graduation, but the President and his cronies can interject religion into a day that is supposed to be all-american

ChiefsFanatic,
may I ask you what is more American than than exercising our freedom of religion? Up untill the Founding of the United States there was not a country (as far as I know of anyways) that had such freedom of religion. This makes it uniquely American if you ask me.

NaptownChief
01-20-2001, 08:13 PM
One of the greatest things about this country was said best by Thomas Jefferson...It went something this...In this country we have freedom of religion, but even more importantly we have freedom from religion...

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 08:20 PM
JL80,
in other words, we can not force religion upon someone. And may I just say for the record that the prayer that Rev. Graham prayed was not forcing his religion upon anyone, but rather just a prayer to his God.

Archie F. Swin
01-20-2001, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by raiderhader
CRP,
you did not answer my question, what have the dems ever done for us? Instead of answering a question that you know the answer to will not be favorable to your argument, you come back at me with a defensive (exactly what you accused me of) reply.

I'm sorry raiderhader, I dont know what your question has to do with the orginal topic. I dont keep a tally of what the parties do in favor of each other. I dont watch Washington that closely. Maybe you could offer some insight.

NaptownChief
01-20-2001, 08:42 PM
Exactly....I look at religion and the bible like this...Whether it is true or not, it is good for all people because the fear of the unknown and the fear of an omnipotent being keeps a large portion of the worlds population from being all out savages...Without fear, having a civilized society may not be possible. People believe in the bible despite the facts not because of the. However, I am glad they do cause it gives many people moral code to follow and many of them badly need it.

soliday
01-20-2001, 08:43 PM
Raiderhader,

There's not a nickels worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Malcolm X used to refer to them as two heads of the same beast. He also used a metaphor of the fox and the wolf. The wolf (Repub.) was ferocious and attacking, brutal and straightforward. If it was strong enough it ate you. The fox (Dem.) was soft and made nice soothing sounds, and when you fell asleep, it ate you. Both parties serve the rich and are directed by them, they may have tactical disagreements but they never waver from defending the rights of property above the rights of human beings. Hitler was funded by rich industrialists who switched their funding from the liberal Weimar government when they saw it was no longer a useful tool. The IBMs, Nikes, Microsofts, Citicorps, et al could give a rats arse whether we have democratic rights or not. Every democratic gain in this country was won by hard struggle, farmers and workers had to push the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, not the "Founding Fathers". Liberals like Jesse Jackson have at the right moment stabbed every meaningful and important movement in this country in the back.

As for organized religion, it has for the most part played a reactionary role in history, holding back women's rights, scientific research and truth, equality among nationalities, and blessing and rationalizing the war machines. If there were any respect in this country for individual rights there would not have been a swearing in on the Bible or any other religious document. There would not be a "convocation" or blessing by Billy Graham or anyone else. Swear on the Constitution, that's all that's necessary. Of course, they'd violate that oath soon enough anyway. These liberal foxes and conservative wolves have to ignore the Constitution because it sometimes gets in the way .

Soliday

soliday
01-20-2001, 08:49 PM
BTW,

Jefferson also said, (roughly) I look forward to the day when the myth of the Virgin Birth will join that of the birth of Athena fully-armored from the head of Zeus.

Soliday

NaptownChief
01-20-2001, 08:50 PM
Soliday,

Malcom X said a lot of things but I wouldn't give a bad apple for any of it...He was nothing more than a violent, hateful whore monger...

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 08:51 PM
It seems this is what Democrats fear, the recognition of only a chosen American demographic.



CRP,
this is what the question has to do with (it is in your topic opener). I want to know why we should recognize them. One, they didn't vote for our guy, so in all reality he doesn't owe them a thing (but he is not like that). Second why should we recognize them and what they want to do when they have not done that for us (not to mention the fact that what they want to do is totaly the oppisite of what we want to do)?
As for insight, how about when the dems had control of Congress, and their legislation is what was promoted and run through. Did they ever go to the Republicans and say we want to work hand in hand and promote laws that we both agree on? NO (because we don't agree on laws, and heaven forbid that the dems would give in on their principals, even though that is exactly what they want us to do now). Sure they would occasionally throw them a little bone or two, but nothing significant and not on a regular bases. But now that we are in the majority they want to be bi-partisan and cooperate. Again I ask, why should we?

KCWolfman
01-20-2001, 08:52 PM
"accept that our past is full of variety and have no problems in celebrating it as it was originally designed."

Red Pants, no problem.

Do you celebrate Thanksgiving? If you are not English or American Indian, then why do you deserve the day off? Per your interpretation, it should be a day sensitive only to those who are involved.

Shouldn't we stop the use of "The Star Spangled Banner" at sporting events? After all, everyone there is not an American.

Shouldn't we change all currency and remove any reference to God in EVERY SINGLE legal document in the United States?

All of the above are ways we celebrate our past, and NO ONE should have the audacity to attempt to remove them from us.

NaptownChief
01-20-2001, 08:55 PM
hader,

You are exactly right on that...To hell with the Dems, they have never been "bi-partisan" in our life times...The definition of "bi-partisan" means that the Democrats get their way, that is how they define it...We should just cram as much of the conservative agenda down their throats for the next two years, just like they always did us...

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 09:14 PM
Raiderhader,

There's not a nickels worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

The he11 there isn't! We stand for personal responsibility, and belief that we don't need big brother's help to get us through life. The dems on the other hand belive in passing the blame (it's not his fault he killed 3 people, it's the T.V.'s fault for putting all of that violence on), and the belief that we are to stupid to take care of ourselves (you people aren't capable of saving for your own retirement, so we have established social security for you). That sir is a GREAT BIG (not yelling, just emphasizing great big) difference!



Every democratic gain in this country was won by hard struggle, farmers and workers had to push the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, not the "Founding Fathers".


Only partially true. Patrick Henry is considered one of our Founding Fathers and is one example of a Founding Father who pushed for a Bill of Rights.


As for organized religion, it has for the most part played a reactionary role in history, holding back women's rights, scientific research and truth, equality among nationalities, and blessing and rationalizing the war machines.

With the exception of blessing war (wich I do belive was wrong in most instances), I don't have the slightest idea as to what the heck you are talking about. Could you please enlighten me?


If there were any respect in this country for individual rights there would not have been a swearing in on the Bible or any other religious document. There would not be a "convocation" or blessing by Billy Graham or anyone else.

The swearing on the Bible (as well as the convocation) is a celebration of our individual rights. There is no preresiquit(sp?) for doing this. It is done because we have the right to do it. George Washington started it and it is a tradition that someone could break if he so desired, because of those rights.

Raiderhader
01-20-2001, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by jl80
hader,

You are exactly right on that...To hell with the Dems, they have never been "bi-partisan" in our life times...The definition of "bi-partisan" means that the Democrats get their way, that is how they define it...We should just cram as much of the conservative agenda down their throats for the next two years, just like they always did us...


JL80,
that would be nice, but sadly the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill have fallen for this bi-partisan crap. But on the upside, George Bush won't do that.

Michael Michigan
01-20-2001, 10:16 PM
CRP-

Took your advice and re-read your post.

I decided that I agree with myself.

You shoud hear the whining that goes on in editorial meetngs before an editorial that the majority disagrees with runs.

Then when you put those two words in bold......

whiner

Bob Dole
01-21-2001, 02:25 PM
This certainly turned into a warm, fuzzy, feel-good thread.

Bob Dole is going to go drive a nail into his left eye now, just to lighten the mood a bit.

Raiderhader
01-21-2001, 02:32 PM
LOL Senator! You know, no one has ever said that politics was supposed to be warm and fuzzy.

Archie F. Swin
01-21-2001, 04:02 PM
hee hee . . . one day I'll restist the temptation to be the devil's advocate

Mosbonian
01-21-2001, 04:32 PM
jl80:

re: post #36


"One of the greatest things about this country was said best by Thomas Jefferson...It went something this...In this country we have freedom of religion, but even more importantly we have freedom from religion..."

I disagree in your interpretation of what he said. I believe that he said we have freedom of religion, but even more importantly we have freedom from religious persecution...

I don't believe that we want "freedom from religion", we want freedom of religion. That means worshiping as we please and honoring the omnipotent deity which we choose.

mark
*********

Raiderhader
01-21-2001, 06:18 PM
CRP,
no response to my post to you? I explained what you wanted and gave the insight that you asked for. What are your thoughts?

Baby Lee
01-22-2001, 08:43 AM
This prayers was pursuant to what George W. felt he needed in terms of blessing and strength, according to the dictates of HIS conscience. Further Reverend Graham, as the person upon whom George W. called, is entitled to invoke whomever HIS conscience dictates.

An inauguration is NOT like a graduation in that its something we the viewers earned, a ceremony in our honor. If you are offended by the sound of the name Jesus on television, do as we are instructed whenever Springer intros the latest installation of 'days of our thighs' or Sipowicz's big white butt looms over us - TURN THE CHANNEL.

Phobia
01-22-2001, 08:56 AM
The guy closed his prayer as he probably has millions of other prayers in his life. You can't ask a man to change his beliefs just because he has a national audience. I was always taught to say your own prayer as the preacher is giving the benediction. I can't believe this guy is being chastized for this.

Clint in Wichita
01-22-2001, 12:39 PM
IMO the only reason the prayer was part of the ceremony in the first place was to "warm the hearts" of all the bible-thumpers that voted for Bush.

I don't believe for one second that Bush is religious at all.

Amyone who votes for a President based on religion, morals, or ethics is a fool IMO.

Clint in Wichita
01-22-2001, 12:40 PM
One more thing: DO SOME RESEARCH!!!

This country was not founded by Christians, nor was it founded on Christian beliefs.

Bob Dole
01-22-2001, 12:42 PM
Or maybe because a prayer is typically a part of it...

Bob Dole would love to do some research, Clint. Care to point out some good stuff that supports your statement?

morphius
01-22-2001, 12:46 PM
Dole - The country was formed by Indians and Indians beliefs, which is why we had to hunt the buffalo and stuff.

Morphius
AKA Sarcasmo

Clint in Wichita
01-22-2001, 12:48 PM
Why not ask someone to provide research when they state that having the words "In God We Trust" on our currency is proof that this country was founded on Christian beliefs? LOL!!

ROYC75
01-22-2001, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
IMO the only reason the prayer was part of the ceremony in the first place was to "warm the hearts" of all the bible-thumpers that voted for Bush.

I don't believe for one second that Bush is religious at all.

Amyone who votes for a President based on religion, morals, or ethics is a fool IMO.

Clint.....How could you say such a thing as this ? BTA maybe you voted for Willie and Al ? If you did ,I understand!

[Edited by ROYC75 on 01-22-2001 at 12:54 PM]

Bob Dole
01-22-2001, 12:53 PM
In other words, Clint, you don't have any.

ROYC75
01-22-2001, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
One more thing: DO SOME RESEARCH!!!

This country was not founded by Christians, nor was it founded on Christian beliefs.

Clint....you need to chill and read a little on the American History! This country was founded by Christian beliefs!

morphius
01-22-2001, 01:32 PM
Clint - When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's <b>God</b> entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their <b>Creator</b> with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just a few more example of times where God was mentioned...

Bob Dole
01-22-2001, 03:26 PM
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that <b>Providence</b> has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, <b>professing the same religion</b>, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

-John Jay, <u>Federalist No. 2</u>

As pointed out earlier in the thread, that ain't Providence, Rhode Island...and Bob Dole is pretty sure the "same religion" ain't Islam.

soliday
01-22-2001, 03:31 PM
NEWS FLASH FOR BOB DOLE:

JOHN JAY AND GENERALISMO FRANCISCO FRANCO ARE STILL DEAD !!!


Soliday

Bob Dole
01-22-2001, 03:42 PM
But that does not alter the fact that they were both born in the month of December.

Raiderhader
01-22-2001, 04:40 PM
Clint,
You want some research to prove that this nation was established on religious beliefs? Well here is a quote from one of our Founding Fathers.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams

Adam's went so far as to say that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Boy, if CRP felt left out when Rev. Graham said the name of Jesus, just think how left out he will feel now. And Clint, there is plenty more were that came from.:)



But that does not alter the fact that they were both born in the month of December.

Senator,
LOL! Leave it to you to bring things into perspective.http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/cwm/freak1.gif

Clint in Wichita
01-22-2001, 06:11 PM
You've actually proven MY point, which was that this country wasn't founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs. I already knew the majority of the founding fathers were religious.

"Religious" and "Christian" are 2 very different terms.

Raiderhader
01-22-2001, 06:17 PM
I never said that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. Although, when they talked about God, wich one do you suppose it was?

Bob Dole
01-22-2001, 07:34 PM
And your point was what, Clint? that in 1937 the first can of Spam rolled off the production lines?

Was the higher being the Founding Fathers repeatedly referred to Allah? Was it Satan? Ra, perhaps? No wait...it was Hunab Ku. Or was it a partnership between Ometecutli and Omecihuatl?

Hell...Bob Dole gives up and is too lazy to do the research, Clint. What religious system was it?

Archie F. Swin
01-22-2001, 07:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by raiderhader
Adam's went so far as to say that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Boy, if CRP felt left out when Rev. Graham said the name of Jesus, just think how left out he will feel now. And Clint, there is plenty more were that came from.:)



Raiderhader,

I'll just assume that you were being sarcastic with the above statement. If not, you clearly prove yourself to be conservative by suggesting one has to be religious to be moral. If you think for one moment i'm not a moral person you, sir , are sadly mistaken.

Raiderhader
01-22-2001, 07:58 PM
CRP,
I thought you knew I was Conservative? I mean if you couldn't tell than...
First of all that is not what I (or Adams) said. I said that our Constitution was made for moral and religious people. Neither I nor he said that the two were one. And no I was not being sarcastic. I do belive that religion greatly helps with morality, but I know of moral people who are not religious.

And while I have you, you still haven't responded to my response to you in post #43.

Raiderhader
01-22-2001, 08:01 PM
And another thing, chill out. You took that way to personal.

Raiderhader
01-22-2001, 08:35 PM
Clint,
I have a little something for you.http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net8/wink.gif


"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."

-Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists

Well, you asked for it and you got it (reminds me of the old statement, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it)http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net8/lol2.gif . As you can clearly see Jefferson said that "Christian principles will always stay in government."
This is were the infamous "seperation of church and state" qoute came from (wich by the way is not the way the 1st Amendment reads). It also points out the point I have been making for a long time, government is meant to stay out of church, not the other way around.http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/ruinkai/biggrinflip.gif

morphius
01-22-2001, 09:14 PM
RH - Nice work.

Phobia
01-22-2001, 09:22 PM
Nice take, raiderhader.

If only some of our not so distant forefathers had interpruted that the same way you have....

I'm not a devoutely religious man but my morals & principals are christian based. I do have my overly religious parents to thank for that.

soliday
01-22-2001, 09:47 PM
Unfortunately, Jefferson's Christian principles didn't preclude him from owning slaves. And many other Christians did the same. Doesn't seem moral, but if you say that's Christian, I'll take your word.

Soliday

KCWolfman
01-22-2001, 09:54 PM
Soliday - Many pious men in the Bible had slaves as well. While I agree that it is not a Christian act today, I find it hard to believe that every man in history who has owned a slave was not attempting to follow the rules of Christianity as set forth in his time.

You are pulling Jefferson out of his time and holding him accountable to today's standards - a very unjust act in itself. I wonder if you would fare as well in his time to the standards of his day?

soliday
01-22-2001, 10:23 PM
Thank you KCWolfman, just my point.

I don't really care what the "Founding Fathers" said. None of it is written in stone, it's the imperfect lessons of a former time, it has its value but if you try to live it today you'll come up short of reality. It's true that the vast majority of people in Colonial times were Christian, but that's not true today. It is very diverse in terms of religion, language, culture, etc. and that's not going to change regardless of what some might mistakenly wish. If people want to try to turn back the clock to another age when this was a Christian nation it's not going to happen, and it's only going to anger others who see in that former time an era of great oppression.

Soliday

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
01-22-2001, 10:39 PM
Soliday,

I think when you examine the country, this country is still predominately Christian. Fairly evenly split between Catholics and Protestants, but I would be willing to bet the lunch money, that all non-Christian religions in this country still come to less than 15% (which is about what it was in the 1990 Census).

Growing up in a town of 800, that had 13 churches in it, I have a hard time believing that the US has changed that much, no matter how the media and some people want us to believe. Inner City, Suburbia, Rural America...look around, there are churches everywhere. Sure, there's a mosque here, a synagogue there, a Buddist Temple or a Hindu shrine may appear now and again, but to say this isn't a Christian country is to willingly delude oneself.

Now, does it always hold itself up to those standards? No, it doesn't. But each person can only account for his or her own actions. If we elect people who have a lack of morals, then we get what we deserve. If we choose to elect people who hold to a higher standard, we also should get what we deserve.


Also, to take a different POV on your other statement. There's a difference in holding people who lived hundreds of years ago to what some in our society consider to be proper behavior <b>AND</b> understanding what they were trying to create and understanding what they wrote and said about the formation of a society.

A good historian always relies on primary sources for their research. What X said is much more reliable taken from a letter that they wrote than listening to an interpretation of that same thought 50 years later by someone who heard something, and translated it through their own filters and biases.

So, while we may not always be able to hold the founding fathers up in a wonderous light by 21st Century standards (which are not exactly agreed on by people in the 21st Century by any means), what they said and what they wrote when they were attempting to create this country out of the chaos of the Confederation (1781-1792), should have a major point in any arguement. That's why the Amendment process is so tedious and why there are checks and balances between the various branches of the government.

IMHO.

Archie F. Swin
01-22-2001, 10:52 PM
raiderhader,

In response to #43,obviously your grasp for the "goings on" in Washington far exceeds mine. I pay little attention to congressional rumblings. I just hope that the folks that represent my district speak well on my behalf. I choose not to keeps tabs of the Federal Government day to day cause it seems rather boring. My hope is that the news media will bring forth items of interest in occasion. If the President and members of his party are speaking only on behalf of those who voted for them, well thats a troublesome thought, but I doubt its far from the truth. Since it seems that Congresman venture to the Capitol with personal agendas to initiate, it could be said that many American voters wishes are being cast aside. Bottom line, politics is slowing down government to a painful crawl. Maybe you and I will see more fluid governments in our lifetime.

In response to #74, if you call my name (username), I'm gonna take it personal. Believe me, nothing you say is gonna get me too bent out of shape. I dont know you from
Adam. All I know is you're a Chiefs fan from Oklahoma and you political views don't jive with mine. I know there is a consequence to posting liberal thoughts (although I dont speak on behalf of ALL liberls) on this message board. If I took offense to your responses to the point that it angered me I would have abandoned Da Planet long ago. I must admit, however, I get a rise out of making the consevative regulars (of da Panet) stray from thier football chat in order to set me straight.
:D

[Edited by Chief Red Pants on 01-23-2001 at 01:44 PM]

dallaschiefsfan
01-23-2001, 01:07 AM
not to belittle this topic or offend those of a different religious disposition...but I don't think anyone has a good reason to be upset about this.

1. Bush claims to be a Christian...and he chose a Christian to give the invocation. What's the problem with this? It would be inconsistent and rediculous to expect a minister to put aside his religion for the sake of a national stage--in fact, it would be hypocritcal for him to do so. Thus...i don't see the big deal about this--the Baptist minister did and said what Baptist ministers say and do.

2. Even if you don't buy argument #1, I contend that it would actually be advantageous to invoke the name of Jesus in light of our population's religious beliefs. A recent Portrait of America poll found that 86% of Americans believe Jesus is the son of God. Thus...it would seem politically expedient to invoke Jesus' name, since that's what 86% of the population believes.

Bottom line...the purported myth of this significantly-sized minority of religious beliefs in American is just that--a myth. Heck...a religion like scientology wouldn't even be noticed if Hollywood were taken off the map...but because it's en vogue for actors, it has the appearence of being wide-spread...which it is not.

Bob Dole
01-23-2001, 07:00 AM
I don't really care what the "Founding Fathers" said.

That's nice. Unfortunately, that was pretty much the entire point of Bob Dole's posts. Simply a response to 2 individuals claiming that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs.

Certainly not an attempt on Bob Dole's part to force-feed anyone Christianity or turn back the clock.

Brock
01-23-2001, 09:31 AM
Jefferson referred to the bible as a load of tripe.

Mark M
01-23-2001, 11:28 AM
I’ve read through this entire thread and have some things to add:

1. I wasn’t personally offended by the use of Jesus. I accept the fact that many are left out of the political process because of their religion. There are a number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others in this country, but none have ever been elected to the highest office in the land. Only one Catholic has. And I find that to be a sad statement. I find it hard to believe that no one of these, or other, religions are capable of holding the office. Once a Jew was in the running for VP, it became a huge deal. Like it or not, for better or worse, this country is still ran by Christians.

2. Post #47:
... sadly the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill have fallen for this bi-partisan crap. But on the upside, George Bush won't do that.

This is exactly what’s wrong with this country. People blindly follow their parties beliefs whether or not it is good for the country as a whole. I find anyone who is not willing to make compromises a complete and utter f*cking idiot, Republican or Democrat. (Not a rip on you personally, raiderhader, just at those who are so closed-minded as to not realize that in any walk of life there is give and take.) And to say that one party shouldn’t work with another to get something done just to “get even,” as it were, is also completely moronic. Compromise is necessary in all phases of life, and to just follow lemminglike a particular belief, no matter the consequence, is pitiful.

3. soliday wrote:
As for organized religion, it has for the most part played a reactionary role in history, holding back women's rights, scientific research and truth, equality among nationalities, and blessing and rationalizing the war machines.

raiderhader wrote:
With the exception of blessing war (wich I do belive was wrong in most instances), I don't have the slightest idea as to what the heck you are talking about.

For someone who professes to be a devout Christian, how can you not know your own religion’s history? Women weren’t allowed into the clergy for centuries, basically relegated to only being nuns and not able to give mass, perform wedding ceremonies or even vote until this century. The church ignored the fact that the Earth was not the center of the universe and called anyone who believed differently a heretic, even when the facts were proven. Divine Right was used by Christians to wipe out every Native American they came across. My great-grandmother was 50% Osage, and told me how her mother watched her family forced off of their land, watched her mother be raped by a white “Christian” and her father brutally murdered by the same. I would call that holding back equality by nationalities. Hitler was supported by the religions in power in Germany at the time.

I realize that “true” Christians don’t do these things, but history has proven time and time again that “true” Christians are few and far between.

This post is not meant to personally attack anyone. They are just my thoughts on this very heated topic.

MM
~~Joining the fray (although a bit late).

[Edited by Mark M on 01-23-2001 at 01:24 PM]

TeenagerFromMars
01-23-2001, 12:38 PM
Mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm...

This is a good debate; however, did anyone else also notice that at the end of the invocation Reverend Graham concluded by saying something to the effect of, "... for those who agree say, 'Amen'..."

That showed at least a little awareness of the audience, to me. Therefore I didn't necessarily feel too distanced from the moment.

TFM
~Willing to vote the Mark M/Soliday ticket in 2003 (if Martians were allowed)

Baby Lee
01-23-2001, 12:50 PM
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to

Women weren’t allowed into the clergy for centuries, basically relegated to only being nuns and not able to give mass, perform wedding ceremonies or even vote until this century.

I'm sure there are a number of Catholics who would view the lifetime commitment of nun to be a calling, not a relegation. I am not Catholic, but my own church has conducted a heartfelt exploration of the role of the sexes in priesthood. Christian doctrine is quite express on the roles which are pleasing to God [and its not about relegating or oppressing]. We are quite cognizant of the developments in secular 'equality.' But the difficulty lies in reconciling the will of an unchanging God with an everchanging world of man.
Jesus' teaching were a lot more revolutionary for its time than the idea of a woman priest. If he and his followers suffered as they did to bring us the fullness of the Gospel, why no mention of women priest? Because we weren't ready for it? It seems clear that the world wasn't quite ready for a new kingdom of love overthrowing the strength of man or foregiveness and love as guiding principles.

Divine Right was used by Christians to wipe out every Native American they came across. My great-grandmother was 50% Osage, and told me how her mother watched her family forced off of their land, watched her mother be raped by a white “Christian” and her father brutally murdered by the same.

And the Mormons used the Book of Mormon [the story of Jesus in the Americas] to go out amongst the Indians, live with them, die with them, and witness the story of Christ the Indians [in the opinion of the Mormons] already knew, but had forgotten over the centuries.

Rather than 'true' Christians being few and far between, I would posit that those who prevert the Gospel of Christ get all the airplay. Much like a women saying 'all men are dogs' because the guy SHE was going out with was a dog. She probably doesn't spend much time with the countless Joe Lunchpails who are in committed and loving relationships, or are otherwise chivalrous and virtuous.

Clint in Wichita
01-23-2001, 12:55 PM
"True" Christians, in some cases, are some of the most self-righteous, sickening people you'll ever come across.

Mark M
01-23-2001, 01:37 PM
JC--
Thanks for correcting me. I should not have used the word "relegated," rather, I should have used the term "limited." There have been many women who would love to be a priest or bishop or whatever, but are limited to only serving as nuns. This is great for those who want to be that, but it is bad for those who would like to take a more active role in the church. One must never dismiss the time in which the Bible was written. Women were not seen as intelligent enough, strong enough or capable enough to serve such important roles. This is a problem still seen in the Muslim religion. Hell, women in some Mid-East countries still can't show their face, arms, legs or anything else in public ... must make cheerleaders boring to watch! ;)

And the "unchanging God" is another problem I have with Christianity (and many other religions as well). If God is so great and so benevolent, why can't he—or she, for that matter ;)—be flexible? If there is so much forgiveness and understanding, why is there such rigidity in the Gospel? If God is so great and all-knowing, wouldn't that God have seen the changes in society coming? Or does God just expect everything to stay the same for thousands of years? Or does God even care?

As far as the Mormon thing goes, I'm not sure what your point was, other than to show that some Christians did not have an agenda to remove the "savage heathens" from the land. Being one who has Osage, Irish and Scottish (my mother's side), along with Mormon and Navajo (my dad's side) blood, I can agree that the Mormons were the least of the problem. Of course, the Mormon discussion is something completely different. I like beer (the Irish and Scottish in me) and Pepsi too much, so joining their side is out of the question! :D)

I don't expect for anyone to have answers ... I must find them myself, just as others must find the answers that suit them.

MM
~~"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
John Lennon

[Edited by Mark M on 01-23-2001 at 01:45 PM]

KCTitus
01-23-2001, 01:51 PM
MM: 'Why cant God be flexible?' - About what?

ROYC75
01-23-2001, 01:58 PM
Mark M

I question your veiws on God? I don't never get involved on religion,but can't help this one. Or Does God even care ?

God cares,but he allows us to make choices in our lives! It's your choice to follow him or not,so is the choice of Heaven or Hell. God says it rains on the just and the unjust!

No offense here,but I get this feeling that you don't believe in christianity ?

Baby Lee
01-23-2001, 01:58 PM
Mark - Since you asked. It is not for God to come to us, but we to him. I am somewhat bemused by the people who constantly marvel at how 'different' religions are in their beliefs. If the goal of religion was to conform to the dictates of man, time, place, power, how is it at all different from the secular world?

Also, I feel that 'limitations' placed by God and limitations placed by man are qualitatively different. If a Christian truly wishes to serve according to God's will, I doubt he or she would be pre-occupied with what title their service receives on earth.

I don't feel 'limited' by the fact that, as a man, carrying and giving birth to another is not in God's plan. [and beleive me, the time may come that the technology renders that limitation, in secular terms, outdated].

Brock
01-23-2001, 02:30 PM
They shouldn't have air-conditioned dog houses either.

Mark M
01-23-2001, 03:33 PM
Wow!1 So many questions, so little time (and to think I’ve got a ton of work done today! Thank goodness for nimble fingers!) And sorry about the delayed response here, fellas ... my computer is having some issues. Maybe god is trying to tell me something via the Macintosh OS ... ?

Titus--
Flexible on how what he expects from us. The Bible is 2000 years old, and, quite frankly, not applicable in many ways to the realities of today's society. Our view of him/her/it has changed over the years ... shouldn't his/hers/its as well? I guess I'm asking for a new kind of Christianity. Perhaps the Church of Chiefsplanet? :)

Roy--
Whatever gave you that idea? ;)
No, I am not. I was baptized Catholic, went to a Methodist church in jr. high, none in high school, and, when I got to college, I took several history of religion classes. And it was then that I started to question all religions. I can accept the fact that a man named Jesus walked the Earth and said what he did. And while I believe in the underlying principles (be kind to others, help the sick and weak, etc.) I also know that his original message has been skewed and distorted over the centuries. After all, King James did not write the Bible. Neither did the Mormons. I don’t believe in heaven or hell, nor do I see life as a “miracle.” It is a complex series of chemical reactions and cell divisions.

JC--
Very good points! I would come to god if he/she/it were more accommodating to this world. That is one of my central problems. We have no proof of a life after this one ... just a belief and a faith that there is one. I think Christians get so caught up in the next “life” that they forget about this one. Without concrete proof, I would much rather enjoy myself here, try to live a good life as I see fit (as long as it doesn’t harm others ... that’s just basic no matter what you believe) and worry about the end when it comes. (See my belief on life in my response to Roy.) Also, I do believe that those who serve god should not care about their place in this world. However, many churches have begun to accept women in larger roles due to the fact that those women have asked for it (as have gays). So I’m obviously not the only one who feels that way. I too, do not feel limited because I can’t give birth ... I’m actually thankful that evolution has made it so women have to go through with it. But evolution is another point all together.

Brock--
Huh? :confused:

You know, I am so glad that we can discuss these things without anyone getting all irate or personal. It is discussions like this one that let new thoughts out into the open, let the mind get going and open minds that would otherwise be kept shut forever. Thanks!

MM
~~Very impressed with all that have responded ... except for Brock :p (still confused on that post)!

Baby Lee
01-23-2001, 03:42 PM
Mark - Re:Brock - I think he was alluding to the excesses of the PTL [Jim and Tammy Faye, etc.]/

Baby Lee
01-23-2001, 03:57 PM
From Hebrews;
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Mark - you're reply to me pretty much defines the secular/divine divide. Besides forming us in his image, God gave us agency to DECIDE for ourselves what we believe and what actions we will undertake. However, God cannot countenance sin. Therefore, as mortal sinners we can never obtain concrete evidence of his existence. We exercise faith by moving beyond our concrete senses and knowing what we can't touch, see, hear, taste, or smell. If all knew with CERTAINTY God's will, I would have to imagine that our agency, our free-will [a gift from God] would be destroyed.

Mark M
01-23-2001, 05:43 PM
JC--
Again, very good points. However, by following god, or being afraid of his/her/its wrath, aren't we eliminating freewill? Most people follow god because of the fear of retribution ... with an element of fear, there is no freewill.

MM
~~Listened to too much Rush (the group, not the conservative). :D

KCWolfman
01-23-2001, 09:33 PM
Mark M - Good points, all. But there are several flaws in your thinking.

#1. So what if a nuns life is 'limited'. Every single life on this planet is, such as a married man, a wife, a doctor, or a bum. The limits are what you personally perceive them to be, and if you do not like them, you adjust to something else. If a man doesnt want to be a husband or respect the 'limits' his wife and his marriage imposes, then he has the ability to move out of the relationship. A doctor cannot refuse to help someone needed medical attention - if a rapist who assualted his daughter is near death he is obligated to save the rapist - a severe limitation that he can accept, or decide to no longer be a doctor. Every profession and lifestyle have limitations. If you dont like them, choose something else.

#2. God's Flexibility. I would say that casting Adam and Eve from Eden instead of killing them, saving Noah and his family from the flood, moving Lot and his family from Sodom and Gomorrah, Blinding Saul instead of killing him, and even ULTIMATELY sacrificing his own Son is the pinnacle of flexibility.

#3. Freewill. Even without a God, ALL decisions have a price to pay - eliminating 100% freewill from every single circumstance. If you believe in 100% freewill, then you accept that I can strike your mother dead and suffer no repercussion for doing so. With God, at least there is a great treasure for acting accordingly.

Think about it this way, if there is no God and nothing happens after you die, then you are going to have a lot of trouble tracking me down and telling me I told you so. However, if you are wrong - woe unto you.

DanT
01-23-2001, 10:34 PM
100! [figured I'd better do the honors, since nobody else seems to want to]

Raiderhader
01-23-2001, 10:45 PM
Man, my brother keeps me off all day long and I have all of this to respond to. I am only going to take a couple and try to get the rest tomorrow (if my brother isn't a punk again).


Mark said
And the "unchanging God" is another problem I have with Christianity (and many other religions as well). If God is so great and so benevolent, why can't he—or she, for that matter —be flexible?

Mark,
why should he be? He is God, not us. He is the all powerful one, not us. Wich means we conform to His ways, not He to ours.



2. Post #47:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... sadly the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill have fallen for this bi-partisan crap. But on the upside, George Bush won't do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is exactly what’s wrong with this country. People blindly follow their parties beliefs whether or not it is good for the country as a whole. I find anyone who is not willing to make compromises a complete and utter f*cking idiot, Republican or Democrat. (Not a rip on you personally, raiderhader, just at those who are so closed-minded as to not realize that in any walk of life there is give and take.) And to say that one party shouldn’t work with another to get something done just to “get even,” as it were, is also completely moronic. Compromise is necessary in all phases of life, and to just follow lemminglike a particular belief, no matter the consequence, is pitiful.

Mark,
I have no problem working together, as long as we don't compromise on our principles, wich is what the dems want us to do. If that is what it comes down to, then forget them, we are in power now, not them.


CRP said
If the President and members of his party are speaking only on behalf of those who voted for them, well thats a troublesome thought, but I doubt its far from the truth. Since it seems that Congresman venture to the Capitol with personal agendas to initiate, it could be said that many American voters wishes are being cast aside. Bottom line, politics is slowing down government to a painful crawl. Maybe you and I will see more fluid governments in our lifetime.

CRP,
They are supposed to represent the people who put them in office. You make promises and get elected on them then you are expected to go keep your word. That is the way it works. And as I said earlier in this post, I have no problem with working together, so long as we don't compromise our principles.

And I meant nothing personal. It was merely a joke having to do with this topic for the exact reason that you are the one who started it (wich is why I used your name).



Clint,
did you see the quote I left you in post #75? I found what you were looking for.

One other quick thing, I agree completely with MCF in post #81. I will (hopefully) check back tomorrow. Good night.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 07:32 AM
Wolfman--
#1. So what if a nuns life is 'limited'? Obviously there are many devoutly religious women who see differently, otherwise they would not have fought for the right to become members of the clergy. My point was that Chrisitianity (Catholocism specifically) view women as incapable of holding a higher religious office. And that is just not so. What makes a man more capable than a woman? It was my attempt (however poor) to show the sexism in the religion.

#2. Very good points, but I think you are confusing "flexibility" with "mercy." The people you listed were all devout, but made a mistake or two. Since god is supposed to be forgiving, he/she/it showed how he/she/it can do so. This mercy is a very attractive aspect of the Christian faith. I like the idea, to be honest. But, once again, why is he/she/it not felxible in other areas (being gay, for instance)? The reason: The people who wrote the Bible felt some acts were able to be forgiven easier than others. They interpreted god's word (assuming he actually gave his word to them) the way they saw fit. They knew people were fallable, and, while creating their religion, incorporated it into the doctrine to make it more appealing. I ask you this: Can a person be gay (something the Bible says is a sin) but still be a good Christian? According to the Bible, no. I just don't see how who you love in this world should have any effect on what happens to you in the next (assuming there is one). (BTW, I'm not gay ... unless you consider the fact that I see myself as a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :D).

#3. Thanks for showing the flaw in my logic. I was a little out of it last night when I wrote post #98 (I've been taking Zanaflex for my back). None of us have true freewill, whether we think we do or not. The murder analogy you used was an excellent example.

And if there is an afterlife, I hate to think I will be punsihed for eating a cheeseburger on a Friday during lent, enjoying bacon on that cheeseburger or because I didn't bathe in the Ganges (sp?) after eating it (covering the Christian, Jewish and Hindu religions with that one). I believe that, if there is an afterlife, the merciful god you all believe in (or that others do) won't care about those things as long as I lived what is considered a good life: I did no harm to others, worked hard in both my professional and private life and just basically did the right thing. If I'm wrong, than telling you "I told you so" is kind of a moot point, ain't it? Besides, I'm not one to do that. If you're right, well ... I guess me and Soliday can spend eternity arguing why we are there! :D

MM
~~Will be buried in an asbestos suit just in case.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 07:45 AM
raiderhader--
I have no problem working together, as long as we don't compromise on our principles, wich is what the dems want us to do. If that is what it comes down to, then forget them, we are in power now, not them.

The word "compromise" means that you give up something in order to get something more important. If you see your precious principles as more important than the good of the country, then you are part of the problem. You expect the dems to compromise theirs, but yet you can't do the same. It has to work both ways.

And your statement of "we are inpower now" scares the living hell out of me. It is exactly that kind of narrow minded attitude that is responsible for every single act of oppression that has taken place throughout history. It is exactly that kind of attitude by King Harrod (sp?) that drove the Jews out of Egypt, the one that created the feudal system in Europe that this country was created to stop, that kind of attitude that let the Nazis take over most of Europe, and that kind of attitude that will run this country into the ground. I just hope for the good of all of us that Dubya isn't as narrow minded as you appear to be with that statement. You seem smarter than that ... I am shocked that you can't make the slightest adjustment in your thinking for the greater good.

I have to get some work done. I'll check back later ... I'm sure the responses will be interesting, to say the least!

MM
~~Waiting for the onslaught. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net5/target1.gif

KCTitus
01-24-2001, 08:17 AM
I believe that, if there is an afterlife, the merciful [G]od you all believe in (or that others do) won't care about those things as long as I lived what is considered a good life

-by whose standards? Yours or Gods?

The flaw in this is that you cannot get into heaven on your good works alone. Regardless of how much good works you do, you will never be without sin. As a sinner, your only way to salvation is through Jesus. Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be obtained by 'good' works.

The Bible is very applicable to today's realities, regardless of its age. God expects us to be perfect. Since we cannot be perfect and without sin, He sacrificed His Son so that we may know God and have a relationship with Him. That's really all Christianity is, is a personal relationship with God and striving to do His Will through your life.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 09:28 AM
Titus--
Your take is 100% correct ... if you're a Christian. I am not. It works for you and others, but not for me, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, et al.

Do you (and others) feel that those of other religions are doomed to hell, complete morons for not believing what you do, or do you think they have their own heaven (even though in the Hindus case, its called Nirvana)?

Personally, I believe that a person's "Heaven" (for lack of a better term) is what they want it to be, whether or not they belive in Jesus, Mohammad, or whom/whatever. As long as they act according to their religion, they are accepted into that heaven. I guess I'm not one to think that there is only one way to do something, or one way to get to a certain place, whether that place be on this world or the next. Egyptians saw the afterlife differently than we do now. In 2000 years perhaps Christianity will be viewed as outdated.

MM
~~Believes that more ways are better than one way.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 09:47 AM
Everyone--
The main problem I have will all religions is this: They were created to explain the unknown. Lightning was seen as coming from Zeus or whatever god(s) that society believed in. When it was proven that it was just electrical charges, the paradigm changed. Originally, the Earth was seen as the center of the Universe and that was incorporated into religion. When that was proven to be wrong, the paradigm changed again. Over and over again, things that were seen as controlled by god(s) were proven to be controlled by nature and science. The last big unknowns are: 1.) Where did we come from; and 2.)What happens after we die?

The first is one science has tried to explain with the Big Bang theory (not to be confused with the Bang Big theory, which states that the more you drink, the more likely you are to go home with a fat chic. Okay, totally out of line and off topic, but I thought it was funny). While I do not agree 100% with Big Bang, I see it as more plausible than some all powerful being just creating everything. Why would he/she/it? Was he/she/it bored? Was he/she/it looking for some new toys to play with? If we are “created in his image” like the Bible says, is he/she/it that egotistical? And where did this all-powerful being come from (the same argument most use against Big Bang)?

The second is the one that has plagued every society that has always existed. Humans are so specio-centric that they feel that “this can’t be all there is for us, can it? Sure, the dogs and cats and cows just die, but we can’t. There must be something more for us out there. Otherwise, why would we go through this thing called life, just to have it end before we want it to? We’re too special.” The problem with this question is that those who know the true, actual answers are in no condition to tell us about them. So we (humans) perpetuate the myth of an afterlife to make us feel better about our own demise, make up these beautiful ideas about what will happen if we’re good and create these terrible nightmares that will happen if we are bad. (And both ideas are used primarily to keep people in line).

I guess I just don’t see it the same way as those with strong faith do. Honestly, if you weren't taught Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, would you believe in it? I doubt it would be something you came up with on your own if you knew the scientific facts of the world as we know them now. And is it the fear of what will happen when you die that keeps you believing? If so, living in fear is no way to live, IMHNRO (in my humble non religious opinion).

If I’m wrong, well, all of you Christians can sit up in your heaven and say “I told you so” while myself and Carl Peterson argue why Elvis never won a playoff game. ;)

MM
~~Believes we all should make our heaven here on Earth to combat the hell we face everyday.


[Edited by Mark M on 01-24-2001 at 09:59 AM]

Iowanian
01-24-2001, 10:18 AM
Mark,

My Grandpa was a medic in WWII,(I've heard this elsewhere as well) but always said "There are no atheists in a fox hole under fire"...He told a story about a guy from basics who was an athiest, and when the bullets started zinging over his head, changed his mind in a hurry.

I've used this analogy as the explanation of my beliefs before(sorry about the repeat)...I was raised and am Catholic, and have my own questions about church, but not the existance of GOD..

I view Religion as a wagon wheel. People are all trying to get to the hub(heaven) but choose different paths(spokes) to get there.

I've also stated that I'm a gambling man...It looks to me that non-believers have morgaged their houses and put it all on 00green on the roulette wheel...pretty risky bet.

I'm a blackjack player...with God as the (house dealer) I'm going take my insurance on my 11 against his ace up...I don't know that the 10 is there...but I'm screwed if I assume it isn't and it is in the end...

Non beleiving is just a risky bet my friend.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 10:55 AM
Iowa--
Excellent analogies! I like the hub idea, and especially like the foxhole one. I just said today at work that "I pray to God my incompetent, dumb b!tch boss quits." So I guess I'm guilty in some respects. :D But I'm not a true believer, so it's more of an expression than a true prayer, per se.

However, if it is the fear of being wrong that makes you believe, then that is not true belief, IMO. You are just afraid of what may happen if you are wrong. Why not believe in all religions, then, just to have your bases covered? To use your example, wouldn't it be better to place your bet on all of the roulette squares rather than just one?

Also, insurance isn't a good move in blackjack. And if you have 11, double down (unless the dealer has the ace you mentioned ... then just ride it out). You will lose sometimes, but in the end you'll come out ahead (this coming from someone who has never lost money at the blackjack table at Harrah's). ;)

MM
~~Knows when to hold 'em, knows when to fold 'em.


[Edited by Mark M on 01-24-2001 at 11:01 AM]

KCWolfman
01-24-2001, 11:15 AM
Mark - You are THE MAN!

I have had very very few religious debates where someone has not accused all those of faith as zealots out to destroy the planet. This thread has to be one of the most enjoyable I have ever read since being on the internet.

That said, you are wrong and we need your address so that we may tinder the green wood and bring the pitchforks to the right house......

Seriously, I hope that some event occurs in your life to make you reflect from a different viewpoint. I have promised never to force my position of religion on others, merely defend it - so I will not do so with you today. But know that you are in my family's prayers

God Bless you regardless of your viewpoints. Your maturity with the topic is enjoyable.

Iowanian
01-24-2001, 11:19 AM
mark,

I don't have the intimate knowledge of the bible that many posters do, but i'd like to throw a different angle at you as a benefit of religion.

A couple of months ago, my mother went in for tests on what the DRs thought was cancer(widespread in my family along wiht heart problems)....I will tell you that in times like those, FEAR of Gods retribution is the least of my worries. I can tell you that Prayer and belief in GOD and asking for help, stregth, and blessings on those who need them can at least be comforting if nothing else...Many DRs will tell you that there is healing power in prayer.

In the end, If I've lead a decent life and when worms are eating my flesh....If I'm wrong about GOD, at least I had comfort/hope in times of need and helped some people along the way.

GOD forbid you ever have to, but try sitting in a room with a close family member in a coma with brain injuries and a resperator, find a good friend with a crushed body and face hanging in a fence after being thrown from a car in an accident, sit in a waiting room while your father has open heart surgery and tell me that prayer doesn't seem like th thing to do..while you hope for improvement, help to arrive soon enough or a good outcome.
Point being...its not always about fear in the end..but some comfort in LIFE.

You must not play much blackjack if you've never lost;) But you understand my point?

[Edited by Iowanian on 01-24-2001 at 11:27 AM]

Mark M
01-24-2001, 11:46 AM
Iowa--
Don't get me wrong here. I think that a belief in religion can be a very positive and beautiful thing. I am in no way trying to tell people that they are stupid for believing in anything. Just tryng to explain why I don't. I completely see where you're coming from.

I have been in the situations you describe. My wife was recently diagnosed with Neurocardiogenic Syncope (a problem with blood pressure—or rather, the lack thereof—that causes fainting and other maladies). At first, the Dr. thought it was something else, and we were very worried. I thought "Great, I finally find this incredible woman who can put up with all of my sh!t, watches the draft with me, can cook like a pro, lets me have a poker night at our house whenever I want, etc. etc, and she is going to be taken from me because of a genetic glitch." I thought, "Boy, if I believed in God, maybe this would be easier. He would be able to give us the guidance and the strength to make it through."

But we then realized that, for me and her, the strength to handle situations like that come from within onesself, not from a book, not from a god. Things that happen in life are not some pre-ordained occurrence, nor the wrath of some omnipotent being because we don't believe. They are random chance. Healing power doesn't come from prayer alone, but how the mind reacts to something someone believes will work. Power of suggestion, if you will. If someone believes that praying will make them better, then the mind just might help out the healing process. If I believed that watching TV would help get rid of my back pain, then it just might. Never underestimate the power the mind has on the body.

And you are correct. I haven't played blackjack at the boats more than 8 or 10 times. It wasn't the system I used or the fact I count aces as much as luck of the draw. Thus the wink ... I'm sure next time I go back I'll lose my a$$!! ;)

MM
~~Believes in probability theory more than religion.

ROYC75
01-24-2001, 11:52 AM
Mark

To differ with religon is nothing more than one's own beliefs. Bascily,the difference of religon is to acommidate man's own belief on what will get him /her to heaven. Like the wagon wheel aproach,Christianity ,from Cath. down to the dif. denominations of Baptist,we all serve the same God,just choose to in a dif. way contrary to our beliefs.

God allows us all to make choices in our lives,that is your freewill!
God also can humble you to if the need is there to do so.

Religon is not for everybody,never has been,never will be.It was meant to be,but by choice only!

As for Christianity,yes I believe and do so wholeheartedly.As for me and my house ,we shall serve the Lord!

BTW....yes we will continue to pray for all those who don't believe. God has an army,we are his soldiers doing the groundwork he has laid out for us.

Mark M
01-24-2001, 11:57 AM
ROY--
You go boy!! :D

Like I said, I find it great that some have such strong faith. You seem to be a great example. Keep up the good work ... and I'll accept any prayer you want to send my way. Can't hurt.

BTW, this is in no way meant to be sarcastic. I do find it wonderful that there are those who can believe. I'm just not one of them.

MM
~~Resident aetheist.

TeenagerFromMars
01-24-2001, 12:02 PM
God, infinity, and nothing. The more I think about them the less I can really grasp them. They each answer the question, "What is and is not at the same time?" And as humans we will never find them.

TFM
~waxing philosophical

[Edited by TeenagerFromMars on 01-24-2001 at 12:09 PM]

Raiderhader
01-24-2001, 09:06 PM
Mark

If you see your precious principles as more important than the good of the country, then you are part of the problem. You expect the dems to compromise theirs, but yet you can't do the same. It has to work both ways.

First of all my principles are what is good for the country. You may think me arrogant for that statement but, it is true. My principles are the same as that of the Founding Fathers. It was their principles that led them to sacrifice so much so as to have this great nation for their posterity. And as for expecting the dems to compromise on their principles, you should go back and read the post that I wrote that in. I stated that the dems have been doing this to us for years. It is just now that we have power that they want to be bi-partisian. Which is a bunch of BS because they just want us to be the ones who compromise, hence the "we are in power now" statement. Which by the way is not that bad of a thing. If you have something you belive in, then you should fight for it as hard as you can. That is if you truly belive in your principles. So to say that I am what is wrong with this country is absurd, what is wrong with this country is a bunch of linguini spined people who are not willing to fight for what they belive in. They would much rather compromise for the sake of "getting along". Patrick Henry once spoke of that in his famous "The War is Inevitable" speech. He asked "What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" He then went on to say those words that have become his hallmark, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" So it is people like me who make the difference in the world. Those who are willing to sacrifice it all for what they belive in.


And your statement of "we are inpower now" scares the living hell out of me. It is exactly that kind of narrow minded attitude that is responsible for every single act of oppression that has taken place throughout history. It is exactly that kind of attitude by King Harrod (sp?) that drove the Jews out of Egypt, the one that created the feudal system in Europe that this country was created to stop, that kind of attitude that let the Nazis take over most of Europe, and that kind of attitude that will run this country into the ground.

To begin with let me correct your history just a little, King Harrod was a king in Isreal. I think you were refering to one of the pharos. Now to the heart of the matter. You can not impose freedom on someone. Contrary to what everyone likes to say, Conservatives are the ones who stand for freedom and rights. We share the same vision as our Founding Fathers. It is the libs in this country who want to impress us. They want a larger government that controls are lives. They want a socialist government which is time tesed and proven to be a disaster. Socialism is a large government that controls everything and a people who are denied basic rights and are there to serve the government. This country was founded so that the government serves the people (in a limited way). And furthermore it is the libs in this country who are close minded, not the Conservatives.


A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement
- Thomas Jefferson






[Edited by raiderhader on 01-24-2001 at 09:15 PM]

Mark M
01-25-2001, 07:39 AM
hader--
First, let me thank you for correcting me about Harrod. I was in a bit of a hurry and got my oppressors mixed up! Again, thanks for setting me straight! :D And let me say that I admire your strong belief in your convictions. It's admirable.

BUT, to say that your principles are those of the founding fathers not at all true. Not all were Republicans, and, while they all believed in a god, they did not all believe in Christianity. Most were Diests. A Deist is: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason ... Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate. You are a confessed Christian, so comparing yourself to the founding fathers is a heckuva stretch, if not totally inaccurate.

Also, I did not mean for you to abandon all of your principles, nor did I ask for you to abandon them to “just get along,’ as you put it. My request was for compromise ... for you to understand that your way isn’t the only way. If there was only one way to do something, only one thing to believe in, this world would be a very boring place and this thread would have one response, if any at all. What I would like to see is government that can work out differences by seeing the other side and accepting what is good about it. Examples (albeit simple ones):
Republicans are for less government, a strong military and for programs that help corporations succedd in this capitalistic society.
Democrats are for social programs, reduced military spending and unions.

These can work together. How? You reduce government involvement and keep welfare by limiting how long and how much a person can collect. Wisconsin is a great example—they provide welfare, but only for a limited time. Welfare should be there to help people when they are down on their luck,but it should not be so great that people would rather stay on it than go to work at a job they don’t like. You can keep a strong military and reduce spending by changing the way the Pentagon pays for its products. My dad was a quartermaster in the Navy and when he went to buy something, he was given, say, $1k and had to spend it all, regardless of what things actually cost. If the military doesn’t use all of its $$, they lose that amount the next year, thus the $700 hammers and $400 toilet seats. You can help corporations with tax breaks and the like and have unions to keep those corporations from exploiting their workers in the name of profits (which was a problem during the early days of industrialization ... if corporations didn’t exploit their workers then, we wouldn’t have unions now). Corporations, in turn, can keep unions from ruining their products and profits by simply being fair and understanding of their workers’ concerns.

This is what I ask for. A balance between two different ideas that helps everyone involved. To ignore even the possiblity of balance just to prove you are right or because you may have to make sacrifices is what “scares the hell out of me.” Everything needs this balance, otherwise the one party or power will hold domain over the other and nothing will ever get done.

MM
~~Showing that you can have it both ways.

Raiderhader
01-25-2001, 05:34 PM
Mark,

BUT, to say that your principles are those of the founding fathers not at all true. Not all were Republicans, and, while they all believed in a god, they did not all believe in Christianity. Most were Diests.


First of all you are comparing religion to principles; they are not the same. My principles are not my religion but, rather most, if not all, come from my religion. I never said that I and the Founding Fathers agreed on a religion. I never said that they were all Republicans (although considering the fact that they wrote the Decleration of Independence and our Constitution and, we Conservatives belive in what they wrote, it is not that far of a stretch of the imagination). What I said was that are principles are the same. They not only wanted the American people to have the right to keep and bear arms, they prefered that everyone did own them.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
-- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

The Founding Fathers were for a very small and limited government and, distrusted government in general.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement"- Thomas Jefferson -

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master".
-George Washington

They were for government staying out of religion but, had no intentions of religion staying out of government.

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government."

-Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists


These are just three examples of principles that I and the Founding Fathers share. So as you see, their principles and mine are the same. I agree with them, therefore my principles are the same as theirs.

This is part one, I am going to address the rest of your post in my next post.

Raiderhader
01-25-2001, 06:40 PM
Also, I did not mean for you to abandon all of your principles, nor did I ask for you to abandon them to “just get along,’ as you put it. My request was for compromise ... for you to understand that your way isn’t the only way. If there was only one way to do something, only one thing to believe in, this world would be a very boring place and this thread would have one response, if any at all. What I would like to see is government that can work out differences by seeing the other side and accepting what is good about it.

First of all, when democrats say that they want to compromise they want us to compromise while they get what they want (I don't know how many more times I have to say this). They are not really for bi-partisianship. A quick example: earlier this week in the NY Post (might have been the Times but, I am pretty sure it was the Post) there was an article talking about Zel Miller, a dem senator, who is co-sponsiring Bush's tax reform bill with a Republican. Now usally he would be refered to as bi-partisian but, because he is actually being bi-partisian he is being refered to as a renegade democrat. Do you see what I am talking about? Furthermore, the dems never compromised on their issues when they were in power but, now that they are out and we are in, they want to work together. And I just showed you what that means. I do not remember anyone telling the dems that they needed to work together with us when they were the ones in charge. It is hypocrisy at its greatest.
As for my way not being the only way, can you give me an example of a country that has been as successful as ours? How about one that has as many freedoms for its people? The form of government that the libs want to give us has been time tested and proven that it does not work. And besides that, why in earth would we want to change something that has worked for over 200 years? Why has it suddenly become outdated? It wasn't after a 100 years, or 150 years. Why now suddenly will it no longer work the way it has? That is BULL SH!T! I defy anyone to explain to me how the institutions that have made this country the greatest nation on the face of the earth are suddenly, after 200 years, out of date. There is no need for a change, what the visionary Founding Fathers gave us will work better than any other form of government that man can come up with. And I also see nothing good about the other sides ideas. They are anti-American. They go against everything that the Founding Fathers established, personal responsibilty, capitalism (free market), and freedom from a big intrusive tyrannical government (by the way those of you who think that Ashcroft is extreme for talking about a tyrannical government here in the U.S., I have plenty of quotes of the Founding Fathers using the exact same word). The dems are for the social programs you mentioned, which if they were the right thing to have why didn't the framers of the Constitution allow for them, and for a large intrusive government (which the social programs are a part of). I like the Wisconson plan to a point, in the way it works but, I don't like welfare to begin with. So it is the lesser of two evils. As for the $700 dollar hammers, I couldn't agree more. The way our governmental budget system is setup sucks dirty pond water and is extremely wasteful. And as for the corparations, libs see all big business as evil. They HATE capitalism. They hate the fact that these people make so much money while there are so many others who are doing good to get by (even though they exclude themselves from those dirt bag rich). The great thing about this country and capitalism, is that you don't have to stay poor. You can become wealthy as well if you just make up your mind to go out and do it. Look at the great steel tycoon Andrew Carnagie, he was a dirt poor immigrant when he arrived in this country and, look at how he ended up faring in life.

[QUOTE]Everything needs this balance, otherwise the one party or power will hold domain over the other and nothing will ever get done.[QUOTE/]

That is exactly what I want, my party to to wipe out the other, because as I stated the other party is anti-American, as I have proved. They stand for the exact opposite of what this country was founded to be. Now let me make something clear because I haven't said this as of yet, and should have, I have no problem compromising on little things, it is the big principles that we must hold true to, or else this country is headed for socialism i.e. DOOM.

soliday
01-25-2001, 09:24 PM
Raiderhader,

I don't have the energy at this late point of the night to debate you fully, but let me just say that if you think that the leadership or even the vast majority of the membership of the Democratic Party "hates" capitalism then you are completely blind to reality and are walking down the sunny lane toward fascism. The only fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Republican party is not willing unless forced to to give any kind of concessions to working people in terms of rights, social programs, international policy. The Democratic party however sees it as a tactical (Not strategic) necessity to give some concessions to working people if only to make them more pliant and less prone and open to a revolution in this country. Simply put they are the Hard Cop and Soft Cop on a political scale, and their intent is to crack your skull, lock you up, and make you think you're the problem when in fact they, and their damned, blood-sucking system is the problem. Some day, hopefully, you'll figure that out.

Soliday

Raiderhader
01-26-2001, 10:15 PM
Soliday,
what a bunch of liberal bilge.

let me just say that if you think that the leadership or even the vast majority of the membership of the Democratic Party "hates" capitalism then you are completely blind to reality and are walking down the sunny lane toward fascism.

Tell me why then they support programs that undermine capitalism. Tell me why they demonize those who have capitalized from a free market. Tell me why they want more government involvment in our markets (which completely takes the free out of free market). What they are doing speaks so loud that I can't hear what you or they are saying.

The only fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Republican party is not willing unless forced to to give any kind of concessions to working people in terms of rights, social programs, international policy.

We don't want to give social programs because they undermine personal responsibility which, is one of the key principles that this great nation was founded on. As for rights, what on earth are you talking about? It is the extreme left who wants gun control and who want to ignore the rights of the unborn child (just to name a couple). Oh yes, we are the ones who want to deny rights. What a load of BS. And about the international policy, I am not quiet sure what you mean about that. Could you please explain.

The Democratic party however sees it as a tactical (Not strategic) necessity to give some concessions to working people if only to make them more pliant and less prone and open to a revolution in this country

First of all, can you tell me what the difference is between strategic and tactical. After looking them both up in the dictionary I found that they mean the same thing (which I thought they did or I wouldn't have looked them up). Tell me, why would the people revolt? What reason do you have to fear us revolting?

Simply put they are the Hard Cop and Soft Cop on a political scale, and their intent is to crack your skull, lock you up, and make you think you're the problem when in fact they, and their damned, blood-sucking system is the problem. Some day, hopefully, you'll figure that out.

I assume you are talking about the Republicans, or perhaps the both parties. I'm not quiet sure, the way you wrote that has me a little confused. Regardless, the truth is that is the truth about the liberals in this country. They are the ones who think that we are to stupid to possibly take care of ourselves that we have to have them to take care of our sorry butts. And as for the system, I would like to know what is wrong with it. You will find no greater system devised by man. Granted, it has taken a turn for the worse but, that is because we as humans are imperfect and therefore, we will manipulate the system any way that we can for our own personal needs (when I say we, I mean in general. I am not saying that every single one of us will do this. But the tendency of our human nature is always there). But that can be changed. There are those of you who might disagree and, to you I say if you have already given up the fight, than it is as you say over. In my post last night, I defied anyone to tell me how the institutions, that have made this nation the greatest on the face of the earth, could suddenly be out of date after 200 years. I see that you have ignored that and , just continued to bash our system. If you are going to continue this bashing of our system, perhaps you would like to explain exactly why it is no longer good and, present one that would work better.

Mark M
01-28-2001, 12:25 PM
fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator or one party and emphasizing an aggresive nationalism

democracy: 1. government by the people; 2. A state having such a form of governement; 3. political or social equality

By you posting thatThat is exactly what I want, my party to to wipe out the other I think we all now know which one of the above definitions you fall under. You have to realize that compromise is what made this country great, not one party dominating over the other. I am just amazed that someone whe seems as smart as you are cannot realize this.

You post that Democrats are the ones who think that we are to stupid to possibly take care of ourselves that we have to have them to take care of our sorry butts.
but then turn around and admit thatwe will manipulate the system any way that we can for our own personal needs. You contradicting yourself is almost Packfanesque. You don't believe in big government but you believe in big corporations? Whether you accept it or not, history has proven over and over and over again that neither big government nor big business can be trusted to do what is right for the people they serve. If you let either do as they wish, the people will will give you the revolt that soliday wrote about.

As interesting as this topic has been, I'm beginning to realize that we are all just wasting our time here. We will never agree on this. You will have your thoughts and I will have mine ... and thats what makes this country so great and why it has lasted so long. We have completely different views and they both can be heard. And, whether you like it or not, by comprimising between the two, our great country has lasted this long. You can't have one or the other ... you need both to make the country strong.

Mi_chief_fan
01-28-2001, 01:06 PM
Extraordinarily put Mark.

Raiderhader
01-28-2001, 09:56 PM
Mark,
first of all I would like to point out that we are a Republic, not a democracy. So you should have used the definition for republic instead of the one for democracy. You have misunderstood me; I don't want to eliminate all compitition, just the libs (socialst/commies). Their ideals are, as I have stated and proven, anti-American. They want a big intrusive government and a society that, instead of beliving in personal responsibility, places the blame on someone or something else.
You also took me out of context when you quoted me saying that we will manipulate the system. I stated that what I meant by we was people in general. I went back and looked at what I typed and realized that I forgot to put people in that statement but, that is what I meant.
And show me were I said that I belive in big corporations. I said that I belive in capatalism and a free market system (they are one and the same actually).Now you are putting words in my mouth.
As for compromising with libs, that is what is going to ruin this country. The reason we have survived is because for the most part we have been an honest, moral, free to run our lives as we see fit so long as it is not illegal people who stand up for what we belive in. If we continue to adopt these socialist programs and ideals of the liberals we will wind up just like all of the other oppressed people in the world. That might be ok for you but, I come from the Patrick Henry (can you tell I like this guy?) line of thinking; "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!". I will not be oppressed by my own government.
You know, I have asked some questions to wich I still have not received any answers. Such as why the Republicans absolutely have to be bi-partisan and work with the party that is not in power but, the dems were not expected to do this. My question is why should we do this. The dems sure didn't compromise (the thing that you think we have to have for this country to survive), and yet did any one bemoan them for this? Another question, that I asked in my response to Soliday, is what the he!! are the institutions, that have made this country great for two hundred years, suddenly out of date? And instead of just bagging on the system, can you present one to take its place? I ask questions but, I don't get any answers. Instead I am met with comments about how I am what is wrong with this country and how I am apparently not as smart as you thought I was. These would be fine statements, if you could back them up. Everything I have said I have backed up with proof (and if you find one I missed just let me know, I will provide the proof). So will anyone answer my questions, or will you just continue to attack me?

Mark M
01-29-2001, 07:38 AM
Since you asked:
republic: a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them; 2. any group whose members are regarded as having a certain equality or common aims, pursuits, etc.; 3. A state or nation with a president as its titular head; 4. any of the constituent territorial and political units of the U.S.S. R. or Yugoslavia

#4 seems a bit odd, but that’s what the Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary has it as being. Don’t think that’s quite right, but, hey, you asked for it. Maybe we need a new dictionary here at work ...

And getting rid of liberals would make this a one-party state. Can you name me another viable party? By getting rid of them, you would have a fascist government. Until some other legitimate party comes along, you’re going to have to deal with it.

And by believing in a completely “free-market” economy (as you have stated many times in this thread), you are proving that you are for big corporations. I am not putting words in your mouth, just showing you that letting companies run their operation without any govt. control would be (and, as history has shown, has been) disastrous. Should the govt interfere the way some libs want? Hell no. But before some government control you had companies putting profit in front of people. That’s why we have child labor laws, why we have OSHA (which gets a bit ridiculous sometimes). why we have mandated work weeks. If you would go back and look at the history of industrialization, all of these things were problems before the govt stepped in. By removing all of those employee protections you will have all of the labor unrest that plagued this country in the beginning of this century. And why do you think that libs are against companies making a profit? I have not heard/seen/read one thing anywhere that would lead me to believe that libs want to take over corporations and make them run by the govt, which is exactly what a “socialist” govt is. Libs just want to make sure that big companies do not abuse their workers while still making a profit.

And show me where any past liberal president has oppressed the people? You are confusing policies that are meant to help people with those that oppress. Even Dubya is putting forth a bill that would create a program to provide prescription coverage for poor Americans. Do you think that is a bad idea? Sound like a liberal philosophy to me. He also want to give govt money to religious organizations to help them fight crime, poverty, drug abuse, etc. Again, a liberal idea. Dubya has stated that he will reach out across party lines to do what is right for the country, an idea that you are against. And you voted for him, so how does that make you feel?

And I agree that Dems are just as guilty of b being partisan as anyone, and I think that is wrong. ANY party that will not work with another is a big problem, IMO. When one party thinks that it is right and ignores any other belief, is narrow-minded, pig-headed and borderline fascist. Can all opinions/beliefs/thoughts be met by everyone? No. But finding a middle ground is the only way to get things done. Why should Repubs do this? Because it is the right thing to do, because they are supposed to be the “moral” party and do what is right (no pun intended), because, by doing so, they will prove that they are the bigger men/women and don’t hold some ridiculous grudge.

And as far as soliday’s issues, those are points he will have to answer. I cannot speak for him.

I’m sorry if you thought I was attacking you. I proved some of your statements wrong by facts of history (i.e. big companies have proven that they cannot be trusted to do what is right for their employees), while you just quote the founding fathers, men who were almost all land-owning gentry, who owned slaves and didn’t even let women vote. They also had to do what I suggest you do—compromise. Do you think they all just sat down one afternoon and whipped out the Constitution? No. It took weeks of compromise to settle differences in opinion/thoughts/beliefs. If they all held your belief that one should never work with the other party/parties, then this country wouldn’t have lasted as long as it has, if it were founded at all.

You are as smart as I think you are, but education is no substitute for life experience. You are, what, 19? When I was your age—damn that makes me sound and feel old! ;)—I held some of the same high-minded ideals that you do. Perhaps when you have more life experience you will come to realize that your way is not the only way.

At least we can agree on who we hate (the Raiders) and who we love (The Chiefs!!!!!) :D

MM
~~Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.

dallaschiefsfan
01-29-2001, 10:49 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And getting rid of liberals would make this a one-party state. Can you name me another viable party? By getting rid of them, you would have a fascist government. Until some other legitimate party comes along, you’re going to have to deal with it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark...if being a "one-party" state is what makes us fascist, then we started out as a fascist country under George Washington, where there was rarely a distinction between what we now know as political parties.

I appreciate what you're saying and agree that we shouldn't want to "get rid of" liberals...but I have to admit that I would be extatic if their particular philosophy just...faded away. But...to say that their couldn't be two political parties within the conservative movement would be tantamount to ignoring the obvious divides in conservative political philosophy.

Anyway....for now, I prefer to just convince or persuade a liberal...not purge his/her beliefs through force, manipulation or censorship--i am that confident that my philosophy is better for me, my children and my country.

Mark M
01-29-2001, 11:34 AM
dallas--
Very, very good points. The divide within the Republican party is something I had overlooked. Thanks for bringing that up.

And I realize that when this country was founded there were not two "true" political parties, mainly because our form of government had never been seen before. It took years before conflicting ideas became to be labeled as "Republican" or "Democrat" (or even Whig, for that matter). But, being human, we (generic) have a tendency to categorize things in dichotomies, so now we have these two parties, and it has worked for a long, long time. Getting rid of one or hoping that one just "fades away" isn't going to happen any time soon (unfortunately).

And one other thing, I am not a liberal. I have wound up having to defend them in this thread,which was not my intention when I started (actually, its been hard. I've just been trying to play devil's advocate here). It just happened to turn out that way. I'm independent ... I don't like either party. So please don't clump me in with slick Willy and the crooks! :D Thanks!

MM
~~Once and for all, not a liberal.

[Edited by Mark M on 01-29-2001 at 11:36 AM]

dallaschiefsfan
01-29-2001, 12:56 PM
wouldn't think of lumping you with the lib-crowd...in fact, i never even considered the possibility, to be real honest. I just assumed you were trying to be a reasonable arbitar...as am i...although, I am a conservative (and by default, a Republican in today's world).

Raiderhader
01-29-2001, 10:06 PM
Mark,
about the republic definition, what do you mean I asked for it? I told you that is the form of government that we have. The people run the country through representatives.
Now lets get dirty.:)

First of all, as Dallas pointed out there are different factions in the Republican party but, there are also a lot of other parties out there. And though you say they are small, more than likely at least one will step up and fill the void. Oh, and Dallas also brought up George Washington. He encouraged that there be no political parties, or in other words one party, the American party so to speak. Does that make him a facist?

Free Markets - if you have paid close attention to what i have typed you would see were I belive that government has a role to play, just not a major one. It does have a role in business but, not a large one. You get to large a role and, you have the government going after big corps for who knows what reason. Just look at the Microsoft fiasco. Government has put so many regulations on businesses that it is completely ridiculous. Now that is not to say that child labor laws and other basic protections are not right, because they are. But as you pointed out with OSHA (an understatement actually) it has gotten way out of hand. You have taken this subject off of its intended course. I never said that government should have absolutely no role whatsoever in business. My point had to do with the way that libs look at a free society. And what do you mean you have never heard/seen/read anything about the libs wanting to take over corporations? Look at the Hillary Clinton health care debacle. That plan was to nationalize one-seventh (I think that is the correct number) of the health care industry. What the hell do you call that? And what do you think all of these stupid, petty regulations are for? The government tells corps what they can and can't do down to almost every last detail. If that isn't control, I don't know what is.

Libs ( and not just lib presidents but, libs in general) have been oppressing the people of this nation for some time now. All of these social programs that make the people reliant upon them. Big brother is is large and in charge. They are constantly trying to increase the size of government, which just eats into our freedom. Another example, taxes. Would you say that he who controls the money is in control? Why do you think that libs are the ones who are constantly trying to raise taxes. Yes, I know Republicans have done this in the past as well but, it is the mantle of the democrat party. They want our money in Washington under their "superior" control. Lets see, they take as much of my money as they can leaving me with as little as they can, sounds and feels like oppression to me. It is so obvious that a blind man could see it. If you can't than you have to be stupid or lying to yourself (that was not meant to be pointed directly at you but, at anyone who doesn't see it). Now as for Bush, I disagree with him on the prescription drug issue. It was one of a couple or three issues that I disagree with him on but, what was I to do, vote for Algore? Yeah, right. As for the money to religious organizations, I have no problem with that. And I don't because its purpose is to get people to turn to other alternatives than the government. This is the way it used to be done, people going to family or friends or a pastor for help. But then came along big brother with his social programs and people could get infinite help there and live off of his fellow Americans tax dollars. I see Bush's plan as one that attempts to take us back to were you turn to people around you for help, instead of the government. If he can reach across party lines without giving in on Conservative principals (which he has done with the perscription drug plan but, I knew that going into the ballot booth) than I have no problem with getting along with the other guys.

The Republicans should compromise on their beliefs because it is the right thing to do? I have to disagree with that (are you surprised?). The right thing to do is to fight for your principles. Giving in does nothing to help your cause. When the dems fight for what they belive in they are heralded as great people who stand for what they belive in. When the Republicans do this they are called mean, partisian, controversial, and devisive. Oh, and do you know who it is who says these things about the Republicans? It is the democrats. They attack us for the same thing that they do. Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites. It is painfully obvious to anyone who dares to look, that the dems are trying to keep us from advancing our agenda. So who are the ones who really don't want to compromise? HHMM, I wonder? And this does not have to do with a grudge, I have mearly pointed this out to show that dems are the ones who are relentless in their pursuit of a socialist "utopia". They are the ones who truly do not want to compromise. You see, they fight tooth and nail for what they belive in. So I have no intention of letting them get the advantage by sitting back and "compromising".

I was not asking you to speak for Soliday, it was question asked of all. It just happened to be in my response to him.

I am sorry that I forgot to state that I took no offense to what you (or anybody for that matter) has said about me personaly. As I have stated in the past I do not take offense easily, although comparing me to Packfan was a little low:). I merely pointed out those references to show that instead of directly taking me on and answering questions important to the topic, you went after me personaly. A diversionary tactic well perfected by people on the defensive. But anyways no hard feelings on my part. I actually appreciated it. I belive if you are being attacked and berated than you are doing the job right.

Now, you have proven nothing that I have said wrong. As with the corps, that was a misunderstanding of my views on business and government. And as for quoting the Founding Fathers, I can not think of anyone more qualified to quote. They are the ones who were there and did the work. They are the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I think they know what they were talking about. And what is wrong with owning property? Once again an assualt on the rich. Will it never end. As for owning slaves, it is wrong. It was a way of life back then that I do not support. But we are talking humans. They had their flaws just as you have yours and I have mine. But that does not take away from all of the good that they accomplished. And now the one that outraged me when I read it. They didn't keep women from voting. Women had never voted. They did not even think of voting. It wasn't till years later that became an issue. To blame them for women not voting is is not only ridiculous but, irresponsible. Even without women voting, this country allowed more people to vote than any other in history. We have led the way in rights. So don't give me this BS about the Founding Fathers not letting women vote. And about the compromising, sure they compromised, about how many delegates each state got to send to congress (it was called Conneticut Plan if I am not mistaken). Sure there were other issues but, nothing like what we are talking about, freedom or oppression. They had decided that a few years back when they freed themselves from oppresive England. You see, they compromised on the compromiseable issues, not their principals.

Mark M
01-30-2001, 11:51 AM
raiderhader--
I'm a little busy today, so I'll try to keep this short and to the point (yeah, right!):

Washington didn't even want to be involved in politics, so to say that he didn't believe in political parties isn't much of a shock. All the guy wanted to do was help the country and be a farmer. He was thrust into the role and took it for the good of the country. Was he a fascist? Hell no. But was he a man who wouldn't compromise? Again, hell no.

As far as big companies go, I must have misunderstood you. I agree that there is too much control. I thought you wanted no control. Thanks for clearing that up.

As far as libs go, I concurr on most of your points. I am not a liberal, but you seem to think I am. I do not see them as the evil folks you seem to, no matter what you say or try to prove to me. They have done good, but have also done bad. Same thing goes for Repubs. All parties have their faults.

I stil believe that both parties should compromise on certain issues, not on everything. You seemed unwilling to do so on anything. I respect you for holding you beliefs/principles/ideals so dearly.

Sorry about the Packfan reference ... I thought that might get you a bit stirred up. It is something I like to do—I enjoy playing devil's advocate, which, BTW, has been the reason for 90% of my posts on this thread. Anytime someone says something with such strong conviction, I like to find out why, especially when they want to get rid of a political party that has been active in this country for so long. If the Democrats are so evil, why hasn't the country ceased to exist? Reason: they aren't as bad as you and others think they are. Bad, yes ... the downfall of our civilization? No.

And I agree that quoting the founding fathers is a good thing to do. I just don't see them as the high and mighty people you do. They all had their flaws, and some were even genuinely rotten people. They had great ideas for a country, however, and they did a helluva job of knowing what to leave for future generations to decide, thus many of the points we have discussed here.

And you have not proven to me that anything I said was wrong, either. You may see it as wrong, but I (as well as others) do not. You have your ideas and I have mine. Nor was my intention to change your mind ... just to discuss different views on how the country can be ran, what is good for it, etc. I think we both (as well as others) have done it amazingly well.

And, once again, that is what makes this country so great. We have damn near polar opposite views, but can discuss them without violence, without fear of any retribution and yet still agree on who to root for on Sundays in the fall.

As Yakov Smirinoff says: "What a country!"

MM
~~Done with this thread ... for now. :)

[Edited by Mark M on 01-30-2001 at 12:25 PM]

Raiderhader
01-30-2001, 08:16 PM
Mark,
first of all, I have never called you a liberal. There may have been times that it looked as if I was bunching you in with them but, what do you expect when you decide to defend their views and then not tell me that you are an Independent till a post or two ago. Although it has been my observation that Independents tend to lean towards the left. Just an observatoin.

If you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me what good liberals have done for this country. I sure don't see it but, I am willing to listen. That may sound strange to you after the way I have been so partisian but, I got to be partisian by first listening and learning and then making up my mind. And don't think that I belive the Republican party to be without fault, because I don't. It goes back to the human nature that I have brought up several times in this topic.

To say that I seem inwilling to compromise on anything after I have said that I am for it, so long as we don't compromise our principles, is ridiculous. I will give you an example of a bi-partisian measure I support. I don't know if you have heard of a congressman named Jim Trappacant(sp?), I am not sure of what state he reps but I think it might be Georgia. Anyways, he is a democrat and this past summer in one of his 3 minute speeches he was addressing some stupid new regulation that OSHA had come up with. And he thought that we should ship OSHA to Japan and let them screw that country up. I am in 100% agreement with that proposal. So you see, I can be bi-partisian:).

As to why the country hasn't ceased to exist (actually itwould still exist, just not as the greatest nation on the face of the earth) because of the democrats, that would be because they have not had total control of the country. And the fact that this country is by nature a conservative country (calm down, I am backing this up in this next sentence). You see there are liberal ideas which had they been put up to a vote in congress, would not have mad it. Affirmative action, Roe v. Wade, and another really big one that I can't think of right now because my mind has gone blank, were made law via activist courts. The way that libs have to advance most of their agenda is through the courts because they wouldn't have a chance otherwise. Granted, this country is becoming more liberal by the day but, by in large this country is still conservativley based. People may even vote democrat but, still lead very basic conservative lifestyles. As I said, this changing almost daily but, aside from being a realist, I am also an optimist and look for the positives.

About the Founding Fathers, of course they had flaws but, that does not take away from the vision that they had the courage to make a reality despite hardships on their own lives (I have a short speech I will have to post after this for you on this topic). Nor does it take away from their expertise on these topics. I mean after all, they are the ones who set this nation on a track that has made it the greatest nation on the face of the earth. So when I quote them, I am quoting the authorities on this issue and I really don't see why you would to quote anyone else, unless what they said goes against what you belive in. Thus this modern day campaing to make them out to be evil, white, Europeans who suppressed women and cheated the Indians (that was a later generation). So the people who want to take this country away from what it is meant to be have to discredit the Founding Fathers. How else do you get people to belive that what the Founding Fathers did needs to be undone? And notice that they have to discredit the Founding Fathers by means of personal attacks instead of going after their philosiphy of government and a free society. Could that be because there is absolutely nothing wrong with their philosophy? Just a thought. Oh, disagree with the notion that the Founding Fathers ever wanted us to even think of discussing some of the issues that we discuss today.

I may not have proven you wrong personaly since you do not belive in everything that you have defended but, I have proven those philosophies that you defended (or rather tried to) wrong. Everything I have stated has been backed up with fact, not opinion. Of course you will say that is my opinion but, that is an argument that will probaly lead nowhere. I do agree that it is a great thing that we can discuss these differing issues with starting a war. It is just a sad thing that some of these issues, should they be implimented, would lead to a socialst country in which we would not have that great freedom (sorry, I couldn't resist:)).

One other quick thing (I was going to try to be less bombastic in this post but, so much for that!). I did not quite get to finish last night, my Dad was telling me to get off so I ended without getting to say this. In your last post to me, you said you thought that my ideas might change with life experience. Well let me assure you that will not be the case. My positions and beliefs will only be reafirmed with life experience. And neither will this passion of youth fade with age either but, grow stronger along with my beliefs. Easy for me to say? Perhaps, but you can be the judge of that by watching my post throught, hopefully, the years.

DEATH to the faiduhs! GO CHIEFS!

Raiderhader
01-30-2001, 08:46 PM
Mark, here is the speech that I mentioned (it will be of interest to everyone, not just Mark). While it is really pretty short for a speech, it is still a little lengthy. So make sure you have a little time. I have also decided to preface it with a quote from John Adams.

"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your
freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I
took half the pains to preserve it."--John Adams


OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, OUR SACRED HONOR

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home. Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today. The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks. On the wall at the back, facing the President's desk, was a panoply - consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissention. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York." Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then must was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued, what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change. A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, Sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted. There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock, and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them? I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere. Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, 9 were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians. With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th century. Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately." Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone." These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics, yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled. It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers (it was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag). Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. "The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost. If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration. William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.
· Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered and his estates in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.
· William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.
· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.
· Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.
· John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.
· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.
· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.
· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.
· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.
· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.
· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."
· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage he and his young bride were drowned at sea.
· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.
· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelsons sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark. He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, could anyone have blamed Abraham Clark for the King and Parliament? The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each and one of us down through 200 years with the answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
- Rush H. Limbaugh II

"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your
freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I
took half the pains to preserve it."--John Adams


Just to let everyone know, that is not Rush on the radio but, his father who wrote this speech. To many people do not realize the sacrifices that the Founding Fathers made for this country. Instead we are in a day and age were people do there best to undermine what these men did. I would hope that after reading this some opinions on the direction this country should go would change. These men did not go through hell for us to turn around and undo everything that they put into place. These men were for a free society that had only a basic dependence on the federal government. They would be horrified at what has become of this country today. I just hope that John Adams hasn't repented yet, because there are still some of us who appreciate what they did.

Brock
01-30-2001, 09:01 PM
So what, OSHA is a bad thing? Sure, let's just do away with workplace safety regulations altogether.

Raiderhader
01-30-2001, 09:07 PM
Brock,
OSHA goes way to far. This past year they proposed a new regulation , I think it had to do with air flow or something of that nature, but the kicker is, the regulation had to do with at home offices. Now they are coming into our homes and telling us what we have to do. THAT is oppressive government.

Mark M
01-31-2001, 07:02 AM
raiderhader--
Very, very impressive. Your list of the signers and quoting of the speech must've taken a long time! (And be careful about posting that you live at home—Clint and cannibal will make fun of for it and say you have no credibility! :D) One other thing: dude ... you have entirely too much time on your hands! :D

What liberals have done for this country:
FDR's work programs during the depression kept some people working, letting them feed their families. He also instituted many programs which have helped millions of Americans (I don't have time to research them, however. Sorry.)
OSHA, while going to far sometimes (my father has an OSHA mousetrap, complete with slip-guards, handrails, etc ... its pretty funny) has done an immesurable amount of good saving peoples lives and companies billions in lost wages.
Unemployment benefits have let people fired for no reason or let go due to downsizing (something that may happen to me) fill the gap until they find new jobs. Many people do exploit the system, however, and reforms need to be made.
Social Security has helped people like my grandmother, who had no pension plan where she worked and lost her husband's benefits several years ago, make ends meet so that she can still live on her own.
Affirmitive Action, helped even the playing field for all Americans. Of course, this is another case where reform is needed. The idea is valid, but it is often abused.
Environmental Protection has made it so we have land to enjoy, rather than exploit. Dubya wants to allow oil drilling and exploration to be allowed on federally protected land due to the energy "crisis" like CA is experiencing. Why is there no increase for research on alternative fuels that can both help the problem and save the land? Because most Republicans would rather continue the trend of exploitation and pollution rather than find real long term solutions to the problem. They see saving the environment we have destroyed as something "silly treehuggers" believe in, rather than focusing on the truth that we are slowly but surely wiping out entire ecosystems.

These are just a few examples. Some of the programs are good in theory, but need reform to be good in practice, if not total elimination due to the fact that they are outdated. And I know how you feel about Aff. Action and do agree that it does have some major problems. But it was needed when it was instituted ... much like desegregation (another example of something good in theory but not in application).

I'm sorry I did not make my Independent status known to you ... I thought it was common knowledge (check out my member profile).

I've enjoyed this discussion greatly. I have a huge amount of respect for your knowledge and the strength of your convictions, and look forward to discussing many things with you in the future. I'm sure we'll eventually find something we can agree on! :D Thanks for the intellectual stimulation!

MM
~~Taking his leave.

Baby Lee
01-31-2001, 07:58 AM
I hate to do this, but in the interest of full disclosure I would recommend the following site regarding the etiology of the 'sacrifices of the signers' article.

http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/signerindex.html

Raiderhader
01-31-2001, 08:02 PM
Mark,
Actually I just cut and pasted the speech and quote, so it took next to no time.

Now things start getting messy again:). The acheivments of the libs that you listed is exactly what I have been pointing to as one of the problems this country faces today. Most, if not all, of FDR's programs were, and still are, socialst (and lets get one thing straight, WWII is what brought us out of the Great Depression, not FDR's social programs). Look at social security. The very first word in the name tells you that it is socialist. Social security tells the people that they are to stupid to know how to save for their own retirement. Not to mention the fact that we have no choice in wether or not we participate in the program. Big brother is telling us what to do with our own property.Oppressive government.

Unemployment benefits are also socialist. How oh how did this country become the greatest nation on the face of the earth without the government helping us up every time we have a little stumble in our lives? Must have been luck:rolleyes:. On the contrary, it was the government staying out of our lives that has allowed this nation to prosper. Getting fired unjustly and losing your job due to cutbacks are bad, but not an issue for the federal government. The beauty of this nation is the fact that one can come from the worst possible situation and become wealthy and succeed in life. And that is not because of government intervention. Once again big brother getting involved were he doesn't belong. Oppressive government.

Affirmative action is not a solution. Its job is to see that minorities get a job that might normaly go to a white person. That is racist towards whites. Now I know you are saying that without this minorities wouldn't get a fair shake and, it is necessary for the advancement of minorities. I am sorry but, I have been taught that two wrongs do not a right make.

The EPA, ooohhh, why did you have to bring them up? The EPA has gone bonkers. They have so many stupid regulations it is ridiculous! Now I would like to point out that you have a major misunderstanding of Republicans. We are for the protection of the enviroment. We just happen to belive that the earth is not delicate and brittle. Truth number six of Rush Limbaugh's udated thirty- five undeniable truths, "The Earth's eco-system is not fragile." Learn it, love it, live it. And as for federally protected land, we have way to much of it. How much do we need? It is ridiculous. Did you know that ranchers have been barred from using certain water sources because there is some d@mned microism living in them? That is going way to far. And Bush is pushing for new oil fields because oil is what we are currently using. Alternative fuel sources are still in the development stages and, therefore will be of little help right now. Work on it by all means but, you have to have a solution for right now as well (some people don't look far enough into the future, others look to far). The EPA, yet another example of an oppressive government.

OSHA is another example of a government program gone bonkers. That is not to say that we don't need safety regs but, they have gone to far and need desperatly to be put in check. My response to Brock is a perfect example of that. They are now coming into our homes and regulating what we do in them. Oppressive government.

About the Independent thing, you forget that I haven't been around here as long as most of you. And for some reason I hardly ever check profiles. Another thing on this topic, you say that you are Independent, yet in a recent post you said that we have polar oppisite views. The oppisite of Conservative is liberals/socialist/communist. You know, "You contradicting yourself is almost Packfanesque" (sorry bubba but, you know what they say, what goes around comes around:D).

I also have enjoyed our debate and look forward to more of them. As for finding something we agree on, heh heh, well maybe we had just better stick with our choice of football teams:).



[Edited by raiderhader on 01-31-2001 at 08:08 PM]

Raiderhader
01-31-2001, 08:05 PM
Johnny,
I have not heard of this before. I will have to do some research on it. But until then, I will go with a guy I trust instead of some website.