Church State Seperation Out The Window

[chanoc]

I read the news today, oh boy. :rolleyes:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/10/31/national/31faith.xlarge1.jpg (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/politics/campaign/31faith.html)

[blackfox]

Interesting that the next sentence was not included.

[skunk]

Something about being invisible, isn't it?

[pseudobrit]

Something about being invisible, isn't it?

Only your ballot if you voted for the other guy.

[pseudobrit]

And look how we're under God. Who is of course under Bush. Underlined.

[skunk]

God is probably a subsidiary of Halliburton.

[jsw]

It must be the low resolution, but I can't make out the "right-wing fundamentalist Christian" that must be in front of the word "God".

[skunk]

That's the bit that looks like an underline: the small print's always difficult to read.

[jsw]

That's the bit that looks like an underline: the small print's always difficult to read.Oh, I see it now. It says "the control of a few power-hungry, uncaring, money-grubbing godless megalomaniacs who manipulate those who believe in a right-wing fundamentalist Christian God and who also believe that they, themselves, are". I just needed to zoom in with Preview. Thanks for the tip!

[yg17]

Everyone, vote for Bush. Maybe you'll also get a piece of the government toilet paper also known as the US Constitution

[kuyu]

Oh, I see it now. It says "the control of a few power-hungry, uncaring, money-grubbing godless megalomaniacs who manipulate those who believe in a right-wing fundamentalist Christian God and who also believe that they, themselves, are". I just needed to zoom in with Preview. Thanks for the tip!

Hmmm... You know, not all conservatives and Bush-backers are "right-wing fundamentalist christians". I haven't been to church in 4 years.

Anyway, what about Kerry going to black churches 5 sundays in a row to ask for votes. Churches only get tax exemption if they remain politically ambiguous. A preacher can say "don't vote for people who support abortion" but not "don't vote for Kerry".

Kerry Amendment #1: Church and state shall be separate, except in the case of democratic candidates in an election year, in which they may go to minority churches to pander for votes. This shall only be permitted if the proper grievances against republican's and their religious pandering are filed via payrolled pundits on live TV. Print media may also be accepted as a medium in which to file said grievances, but only on page one in the form of a news story.

As well, any republican attempt to revoke tax exemption for minority churches used as photo ops must be squelched by calling said republican(s) racist panderer's. Also, all democratic candidates must remain religiously anti-religious in less a publicly staged faux prayer and/or spiritual experience proves to gain said candidate political ground.

;)

[jsw]

Hmmm... You know, not all conservatives and Bush-backers are "right-wing fundamentalist christians". I haven't been to church in 4 years.Well, I didn't say "who manipulate only..." ;)

...Kerry Amendment #1: Church and state shall be separate, except in the case of democratic candidates in an election year...Well, at least he believes in separating them most of the time, as opposed to, say, never.

[blackfox]

Kuyu, first of all, it is nice to see you posting here more often...I have always enjoyed your POV and your manner of expressing them.

Now, I agree with your post at least in the sense that I find it equally disingenious for either Party to co-opt Religion as a vote-getting tool and/or selectively enforcing church/state separation as suits their interests.

You are correct (I hope) in saying that many Conservatives and/or Bush-backers are not "right-wing fundamentalists". I happen to appreciate, if not admire traditional Conservative thought/priorities. Which is while I am so saddened by the fact that Bush is your Candidate. I feel that he is, or at least caters to the more extreme elements of Conservatism, while at the same time not being very Conservative in many of his policies, despite any lip-service to the contrary. I feel that many conservatives are either duped by rhetoric or bound by party-loyalty.

You may feel that Kerry is not a decent option, and that is your perogative, but I feel much of the criticism he gets is merely a reflection of the fact that he is a long-time Politician, and operates like one. Still, in matters of policy, Kerry will be more likely to be the truly conservative Candidate. I tend to look at this in terms of true conservatism and as adhering somewhat close-to-center. Yes, he may have some "liberal" policy ideas, but in working with a GOP Congress, it is likely that any Legislation or Judicial Nominees will be Centrist in Nature. In foreign policy, he will likely be similar to Bush's father. It is interesting to compare the elder Bush to his son, as the former would probably not fare well against the latter in a Campaign. He raised taxes, he insisted on UN approval and real coalitions in going into Iraq. He could be hit with many of the same attacks that are now used on Kerry. Nevertheless, on Bush sr's watch, the Soviet Union crumbled as did the Berlin wall. No mass deployment of troops was necessary.

[IJ Reilly]

Anyway, what about Kerry going to black churches 5 sundays in a row to ask for votes. Churches only get tax exemption if they remain politically ambiguous. A preacher can say "don't vote for people who support abortion" but not "don't vote for Kerry".

Political candidates canvassing for votes in churches is absolutely nothing new and certainly not a church-state violation. If a church is obviously partisan in who they allow to visit their churches, or if they engage in political campaigning as an institution, or endorse a candidate, then this might be an issue. A politician visiting a church is not.

[kuyu]

I feel that many conservatives are either duped by rhetoric or bound by party-loyalty.


Excellent points. On this quote in particular, you're right. Many are "duped" by the talking points and so forth. I think this is true on both sides. For every ignorant old republican loyalist there is always one person who learned everything they know about politics on acid.

So in the spirit of political rhetoric here's why I support the guy (remember, I voted for Gore in 2000)...

1) National Security: Both candidates are competent in this regard. The scale is tipped toward Bush because, according to polls, Bush has the allegiance of the military by 4 to 1 over Kerry. Talking to my friends serving in Iraq confirms this for me.

2) Economy: Again, both show a prowess for spending money. However, we are at war and so such spending is necessary. I'm a finance student, and we joke in class about how mis-led everyone is about the economy. It's not perfect, but it's SOOO much better than the news tells us it is.

3) Jobs: I'm in the job market, and currently work a minimum wage job. Kerry's plan sounds great, but the math doesn't work out. $8 an hour is tempting, but all that it will do is cause unemployment and inflation. Owner's will lay people off and/or raise prices to cover their payroll expense. So some of us have more money, but everything costs more...

I could go on, but these are my main reasons for supporting Bush. I don't hate Kerry, I don't think we're all screwed if he wins. He has some good ideas too.

[blackfox]

Kuyu, I would refer you to this thread for a better explanation of my concerns as attempted in my last post:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=95860

This primarily relates to the National Security point you made.

As far as Economy goes, I would only say one word "deficits". Eight Presidents have mentioned the severe danger of deficits and our latest one is primarily the result of tax policy, not war-spending. Even you must raise an eyebrow when Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in Office.
Besides, as you probably know, the Economy operates somewhat divorced from Politics. As does job-creation.

Here is an NYT editorial which speaks more eloquently about my earlier points about the Elder Bush:
Columnists for this newspaper are not allowed to endorse presidential candidates. But I think this election is so important, I am going to break the rules. I hope I don't get fired. But here goes: I am endorsing George Bush for president. No, no - not George W. Bush. I am endorsing his father - George Herbert Walker Bush.

The more I look back on the elder Bush - Bush 41 - the more I find things to admire and the more I see attributes we need in our next president.

Let's start with domestic policy. The elder George Bush was the real uniter, not divider, the real believer in a kinder, gentler political dialogue. Yes, he had a Democratic Congress to deal with, so he had to be more conciliatory, but it came naturally to him. In 1990, the elder Bush sided with Congressional Democrats to raise taxes, because he knew it was the right thing for the economy, despite his famous "Read my lips" pledge not to raise new taxes. While that 1990 tax increase contributed to his re-election defeat, it laid the foundation for the Clinton tax increases, which, together with Mr. Bush's, helped to hold down interest rates and spur our tremendous growth in the 1990's and the buildup of a huge surplus.

On foreign policy, the elder Bush maintained a healthy balance between realism and idealism, unilateralism and multilateralism, American strength and American diplomacy. He believed that international institutions like the U.N. could be force multipliers of U.S. power. Rather than rubbing Mikhail Gorbachev's nose in the dirt, the elder Bush treated him with respect, and in doing so helped to orchestrate the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany without the firing of a single shot. The nonviolent unraveling of the Soviet Empire ushered in a decade of prosperity and an era of unprecedented American power and popularity.

The alliance that Mr. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and James A. Baker III built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait had so many allies it virtually turned a profit for America. Mr. Bush chose not to invade Baghdad in 1991. Right or wrong, he felt that had he tried, he would have lost the coalition he had built up to evict Saddam from Kuwait. He obviously believed that the U.S. should never invade an Arab capital without a coalition that contained countries whose support mattered in that part of the world, such as France, Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

The elder Bush rightly understood that it was not in Israel's interest, or that of the U.S., for Israel to be expanding settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Madrid peace conference convened by the elder Bush paved the way for both the Oslo peace process and the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty, which ended Israel's diplomatic isolation with countries like India and China. It was also the elder Bush who laid the groundwork for the Nafta free-trade accord, completed by President Bill Clinton.

In short, the elder Bush understood the importance of acting in the world - but acting wisely, with competence and preparation. His great weakness was his public diplomacy. He wrongly antagonized American Jews by challenging their right to lobby on behalf of Israel. He could have given more voice to the amazing liberation of humanity that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented and to the American anger over the Tiananmen Square massacre. Although, in his muted response to Tiananmen, the elder Bush kept China-U.S. relations from going totally off the rails, which kept China on a track to economic reform. Although he raised taxes, he never really explained himself. So his instincts were good, his mechanics were often flawless, but his words and music left you frustrated. Still, the legacy is a substantial one. Over time, historians will treat the elder Bush with respect.

So as we approach this critical election of 2004, my advice, dear readers, is this: Vote for the candidate who embodies the ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy. Vote for the man who you think would have the same gut feel for nurturing allies and restoring bipartisanship to foreign policy as him. Vote for the man you think understands the importance of facing up to our fiscal responsibilities for the sake of our children. And vote for the man who has the best instincts for balancing realism and idealism and the man who understands the necessity of using energetic U.S. diplomacy to make Israel more secure - by helping to bring it peace with its Arab neighbors, not just more tours from American Christian fundamentalists.

Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H. W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is.

Perhaps it is all too late...but last-minute food for thought.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hmmm... You know, not all conservatives and Bush-backers are "right-wing fundamentalist christians". I haven't been to church in 4 years.

Anyway, what about Kerry going to black churches 5 sundays in a row to ask for votes. Churches only get tax exemption if they remain politically ambiguous. A preacher can say "don't vote for people who support abortion" but not "don't vote for Kerry".

Kerry Amendment #1: Church and state shall be separate, except in the case of democratic candidates in an election year, in which they may go to minority churches to pander for votes. This shall only be permitted if the proper grievances against republican's and their religious pandering are filed via payrolled pundits on live TV. Print media may also be accepted as a medium in which to file said grievances, but only on page one in the form of a news story.

As well, any republican attempt to revoke tax exemption for minority churches used as photo ops must be squelched by calling said republican(s) racist panderer's. Also, all democratic candidates must remain religiously anti-religious in less a publicly staged faux prayer and/or spiritual experience proves to gain said candidate political ground.

;)

Sorry kuyu, but this can backfire on white-majority Christian churches that have invited Republican candidates to speak to their congregations.

Sounds as if some out there aren't ready for positive change, rather than negative words and further dividing the nation.

[IJ Reilly]

1) National Security: Both candidates are competent in this regard. The scale is tipped toward Bush because, according to polls, Bush has the allegiance of the military by 4 to 1 over Kerry. Talking to my friends serving in Iraq confirms this for me.

The US military owes its allegiance to the civilian government, no matter who runs it. Voting for someone because he's favored by the military is pure banana republic reasoning. I have to say I am shocked and dismayed to hear an American make a statement like this.

[skunk]

For every ignorant old republican loyalist there is always one person who learned everything they know about politics on acid.
It's about as reliable a way to the truth as any other...

So in the spirit of political rhetoric here's why I support the guy
We put Guys on top of bonfires in this country. Remember, remember the 5th of November. :D

1) National Security: Both candidates are competent in this regard. The scale is tipped toward Bush because, according to polls, Bush has the allegiance of the military by 4 to 1 over Kerry.
The allegiance of the military to a warmonger is not surprising. Bush has shown extraordinary INcompetence: little useful preparation at home, and a complete shambles abroad.

2) Economy: Again, both show a prowess for spending money. However, we are at war and so such spending is necessary.
No excuse. It's a war of choice, and with all the money spent, it has not achieved its primary objective.

3) Jobs: I'm in the job market, and currently work a minimum wage job. Kerry's plan sounds great, but the math doesn't work out. $8 an hour is tempting, but all that it will do is cause unemployment and inflation. Owner's will lay people off and/or raise prices to cover their payroll expense. So some of us have more money, but everything costs more...
Moot point at best. It didn't happen here.

I could go on, but these are my main reasons for supporting Bush. I don't hate Kerry, I don't think we're all screwed if he wins. He has some good ideas too.
He certainly has less BAD ideas.

[pseudobrit]

The US military owes its allegiance to the civilian government, no matter who runs it. Voting for someone because he's favored by the military is pure banana republic reasoning. I have to say I am shocked and dismayed to hear an American make a statement like this.

And that's before you mention that even having a standing army during peacetime is unconstitutional.

Or that the military is likely to vote for whomever keeps them working (their job is killing).

[kuyu]

The US military owes its allegiance to the civilian government, no matter who runs it. Voting for someone because he's favored by the military is pure banana republic reasoning. I have to say I am shocked and dismayed to hear an American make a statement like this.

Yes, that's true in theory. But in practice, our troops overwhelmingly (more than ANY state) support Bush in this election. This may not fit the definition of "service" but it's a fact! They get the news over there. They heard Kerry say "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".

If Kerry wins today, 4 out of 5 military servicemen will have voted against him. They don't trust the guy. Expect to see a wave of retirees in the middle to high ranks. This will in turn cause a wave of promotions, and leave the lower ranks decimated. What recruit wants to voluntarily join the "wrong war"?

I do not think that Kerry is incompetent on international politics or national defense. I'm not gullible enough to believe that we will be attacked because he is president. However, I contend that a Kerry presidency is far more likely to spur a draft. Kerry has already said that Iran is next, and possibly N Korea. With what army??? Again, our military is the most Pro-Bush population in the world! 80% pro Bush.

[Ugg]

Again, our military is the most Pro-Bush population in the world! 80% pro Bush.

Doesn't that scare the hell out of you? He is responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of thousands of Americans in a war that shouldn't have been. Does the US military have a death with? Might doesn't equal right and their belief in someone who jumped ship during a war is sadly misplaced.

Here's hoping that Kerry wins and the US no longer needs to make up for its internal inadequacies by waging senseless wars.

[IJ Reilly]

It's not just true in "theory," it's true in factual reality. I'll say it again: you are making a banana republic argument. And I'm not talking about the clothing store. It does not matter one bent dime who the military prefers to be commander in chief. Beyond voting like every other American, under our system the military is not entitled to express a preference in this matter.

[kuyu]

It's not just true in "theory," it's true in factual reality. I'll say it again: you are making a banana republic argument. And I'm not talking about the clothing store. It does not matter one bent dime who the military prefers to be commander in chief. Beyond voting like every other American, under our system the military is not entitled to express a preference in this matter.

I understand that most everyone here opposes this war. But, the troops fighting on the ground in Iraq, overwhelmingly, do not oppose the war. It's funny that the last people asked about whether the war is a good or bad idea are the ones fighting it. The fact that they support the war and the presidents decision in this matter is a reason, I feel, to vote for the guy.

This may be "banana republic" logic, but I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him." A close friend of mine is being deployed Dec. 5. He's certainly not going to fight "the wrong war"... Hopefully he won't be under the command of the wrong president. ***But, that's his view, which is apparantly irrelevant. Why should his opinion matter, he's only the one actually fighting instead of staying home and complaining about a war.

[jywv8]

I understand that most everyone here opposes this war. But, the troops fighting on the ground in Iraq, overwhelmingly, do not oppose the war. It's funny that the last people asked about whether the war is a good or bad idea are the ones fighting it. The fact that they support the war and the presidents decision in this matter is a reason, I feel, to vote for the guy.

This may be "banana republic" logic, but I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him." A close friend of mine is being deployed Dec. 5. He's certainly not going to fight "the wrong war"... Hopefully he won't be under the command of the wrong president. ***But, that's his view, which is apparantly irrelevant. Why should his opinion matter, he's only the one actually fighting instead of staying home and complaining about a war.

I think the point is that you join the military to serve your country, not to serve a political party or the particular person who happens to be sitting in the whitehouse.

[Lyle]

... I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. You are correct that, as a U.S. citizen, each American's soldier's vote is just as important as any other U.S. citizen's. But the job of the military, as a collective, is to serve the will of the American people. If we wake up tomorrow morning and the majority of the American people have elected John Kerry as our next President, that also means (by extension) that the majority has elected him to be our commander in chief and call the shots for our military. That doesn't mean that they (the troops) have to "like" him, but it does mean that the country they serve has decided he's the boss.

Oh, and I voted for Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him."

Absolutely. If Kerry is elected president, then he will their commander in chief and they have no choice but to "like" him. This is how the system works in the US. Incidentally you may recall what I've said about this in other threads. I also don't think members of the military ought to be questioning or commenting publicly about where they are sent to fight, why, or by whom. The military serves the elected civilian government. Full stop.

[jadam]

I find it horrible how certain left wing people love to chastise the president for believing in God. You do know that NO ONE is forcing christianity down your throat. No one is also saying your religion is the wrong one because the president doesn't follow your religion. That's the whole point of a free country. Then again, those left wing nuts have the right to criticize the president, sometimes though I feel they overdo it. I would certainly like to see them try to run the country and to bring up the economy and to secure the right for other asshats(Michael Moore and Co.) to complain about their administration after 9/11.


And as far as soldiers go, they do what they do because they believe in it. And contrary to what you may think, many people in the military are highly intelligent. Why do you think we have such an awesome military?

[jywv8]

I find it horrible how certain left wing people love to chastise the president for believing in God. You do know that NO ONE is forcing christianity down your throat. No one is also saying your religion is the wrong one because the president doesn't follow your religion. That's the whole point of a free country. Then again, those left wing nuts have the right to criticize the president, sometimes though I feel they overdo it. I would certainly like to see them try to run the country and to bring up the economy and to secure the right for other asshats(Michael Moore and Co.) to complain about their administration after 9/11.

No one is forcing Christianity down my throat? Really? No one is trying to take away my right to an abortion? No one is trying to stop people in my country from conducting stem cell research? No one is trying to force my teachers to give equal weight to evolution and creationism in the classroom? No one is trying to post the ten commandments in my school? No one is trying to ban my gay friends from getting married? And none of this is at all related to Christianity?

Oh, well, I must be one of those "left wing nuts" or "other asshats".

[emw]

I understand that most everyone here opposes this war. But, the troops fighting on the ground in Iraq, overwhelmingly, do not oppose the war. It's funny that the last people asked about whether the war is a good or bad idea are the ones fighting it. The fact that they support the war and the presidents decision in this matter is a reason, I feel, to vote for the guy.

This may be "banana republic" logic, but I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him." A close friend of mine is being deployed Dec. 5. He's certainly not going to fight "the wrong war"... Hopefully he won't be under the command of the wrong president. ***But, that's his view, which is apparantly irrelevant. Why should his opinion matter, he's only the one actually fighting instead of staying home and complaining about a war.

In my opinion, people join the military for a couple of reasons - either they believe it is their responsibility to provide for the security of our nation, or they are looking for a way to cover college tuition and get some good experience in return.

Either way, I think that the vast majority of them are going to be of the mindset that we need to protect America at all costs, and that going to war is what they were trained to do. It is to be expected that those currently in the military support a president who provide them a mechanism for such activities.

In addition, those called upon to do battle cannot afford the mental distraction of feeling that they are in the "wrong war." They are conditioned to react to the call and do what they are instructed to do. Questioning orders is not an option.

I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of the Bush supporters have actually served in Iraq, though.

[jadam]

No one is forcing Christianity down my throat? Really? No one is trying to take away my right to an abortion? No one is trying to stop people in my country from conducting stem cell research? No one is trying to force my teachers to give equal weight to evolution and creationism in the classroom? No one is trying to post the ten commandments in my school? No one is trying to ban my gay friends from getting married? And none of this is at all related to Christianity?

Oh, well, I must be one of those "left wing nuts" or "other asshats".

Those are moral issues. Abortion after the 2nd trimester is downright murder, plain and simple, if you dont want a kid, stop ****ing around or wear a condom or get a abortion in your first month not when the baby is almost done developing and you have to crush its head in order to have an abortion. Also no one is stopping stem cell research, they are ONLY stopping embryonic stem cell research. And as far as gay people are concerned, the GOP is denying the right for it to be called a marriage, they are not telling gay people to not be gay or else leave the country and be punished. Marraige is also a religious term, and you are trying to change it into something else, you are basically trying to change what I believe in to suit your own personal needs and I will not stand for that. As far as 10 commandments being taught in school or evolution vs creationism, I don't know, I went to a school in a large city and those were never issues.

Also blaming it all on christianity is a bit over the extreme don't you think? Are you going to blame the fact that America has a deep rooted christian community? blame that on history, not on christian Americans.

[IJ Reilly]

And this week's "Whatever" award goes to...

[jadam]

And this week's "Whatever" award goes to...

Because thats the attitude we should have to politics, whatever right?

One of our responsibilities as Americans is to discuss them amongst fellow Americans.

[blackfox]

I am obviously no genius (as those who are used to my posts can attest), but it seems to me that this argument has very little to do with Christianity itself. I feel it has to do with the co-opting of Christianity by individual Politicians and/or their Party to forward their own political success/agenda. Religion is a powerful motivator and generates visceral responses, which can easily cloud the truth of an issue. It is for that reason that I support a separation of Church and State, not because it is in itself a bad thing, but because people cannot be trusted to not highjack a Religion to promote their message. No party or individual has a sovereign claim to Christianity, so just leave it outside of the Political Arena. It is largely a private matter imo.

[IJ Reilly]

Because thats the attitude we should have to politics, whatever right?

No. After a couple years of vigorous debating in this forum on a whole variety of issues, at the moment I simply can't muster much enthusiasm for responding to your simplistic arguments -- though I'm sure others will much more happily take it on. Be prepared to defend yourself, is my suggestion.

[jywv8]

Those are moral issues.

And this particular system of morals has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity?

Marraige is also a religious term, and you are trying to change it into something else

Marriage is also a legal contract. And that is as far as the concerns of the state should reach (e.g. separation of church and state, which I think was the title of this thread).

Also blaming it all on christianity is a bit over the extreme don't you think? Are you going to blame the fact that America has a deep rooted christian community? blame that on history, not on christian Americans.

I'm not "blaming Christianity" for anything. Christianity hasn't "done" anything. Furthermore, I have great respect for the work of churches and other Christian organizations that fight for social justice, peace, and do their best to aid those who are oppressed, powerless, and/or in poverty.

I agree with the previous poster that this argument has very little to do with Christianity itself.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I understand that most everyone here opposes this war. But, the troops fighting on the ground in Iraq, overwhelmingly, do not oppose the war. It's funny that the last people asked about whether the war is a good or bad idea are the ones fighting it. The fact that they support the war and the presidents decision in this matter is a reason, I feel, to vote for the guy.

First I think that there is a good balance overall on the support of the "war on Iraq". Any any one time there is a leaning towards one side or the other.

About the support of the war from the troops, do you have evidence to support this? For the general information available from many sources seems to support both sides. The difference is the support for the military. The Republicans support in general the concept of a "strong" military, whatever that means. On the other hand we have "stop-loss" orders that restriction the obligations that the enlisted and the military entered into.

Then we have stories of reservists that met the requirements for their "honorable" discharge. Yet they are told "after the fact" that they have to re-report for duty. In the mean time their families are unable to meet the rent/mortgage. If wounded they face a VA that is woefully underfunded to meet the needs of the new battlefield injuries. If you want concrete examples of how the current administration failed those in uniform, I will provide the comments.

This may be "banana republic" logic, but I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him." A close friend of mine is being deployed Dec. 5. He's certainly not going to fight "the wrong war"... Hopefully he won't be under the command of the wrong president. ***But, that's his view, which is apparantly irrelevant. Why should his opinion matter, he's only the one actually fighting instead of staying home and complaining about a war.

To be honest I am too lazy to look at the regular verses reserves verses the Guard to see how Bush's illegal war has affected the rank and file. My partisan comment is that GWB took advantage of the situation. It appears that his Dad got him into the ANG. That he looked for assignments that would benefit him "personally" not "militarily". That he was more interested in working towards a politicians reelection, rather the than nations security.

In regards to the NG, I know of many people that realized their need to keep up on "current requirements" of "readiness" that did not look for "favors". Bush dodged "fitness" eval's, and training to the latest equipment of the ANG.

For those that need a lesson or reminder. My Dad joined the US Navy at 16 or 17 depending on the family history. It was just after Pearl Harbor. My Dad served his 'hitch" in the Navy and then joined the Army till the early 60's.

He was part of the "Ready Reserves' during the Cuban Missile Crisis. From what I have been told, the policies that almost lead to a World Nuclear War, and for a "questionable" "policy" lead to my parents to questioning our "military" efforts.

One of the things that needs to be looked at is the use of the military. And how it effects the vote. For without war, but a world of peace the "warriors" have no place to go. And to be honest, if the members of our military looked at what was really given to them for the future (and in some cases the present) they might vote differently.

Beyond that, have you ever been involved in the Military or a company that supports the Military? There are under currents that run very deep. The recruits are given the "impression" that they are less than dirt. Back in the 80's they were considered "property". Meaning that if you as a recruit "damaged" the "military" property, then the Military had a potential claim against you.

Those that are against the "war" are no "against" the troops. There are bigger issues that both sides have failed to address.

[jadam]

And this particular system of morals has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity?

Sure it does, but everyone is effected by what they believe in. And if that is what someone believes in, you can not place the blame on christianity for him thinking that way.



I agree with the previous poster that this argument has very little to do with Christianity itself.

Exactly.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think the point is that you join the military to serve your country, not to serve a political party or the particular person who happens to be sitting in the whitehouse.

Today, how do we draw the line?

[skunk]

Part of that deal is that the POTUS undertakes not to use the military in a frivolous fashion.

[Ugg]

Those are moral issues. Abortion after the 2nd trimester is downright murder, plain and simple, if you dont want a kid, stop ****ing around or wear a condom or get a abortion in your first month not when the baby is almost done developing and you have to crush its head in order to have an abortion. Also no one is stopping stem cell research, they are ONLY stopping embryonic stem cell research. And as far as gay people are concerned, the GOP is denying the right for it to be called a marriage, they are not telling gay people to not be gay or else leave the country and be punished. Marraige is also a religious term, and you are trying to change it into something else, you are basically trying to change what I believe in to suit your own personal needs and I will not stand for that. As far as 10 commandments being taught in school or evolution vs creationism, I don't know, I went to a school in a large city and those were never issues.

Also blaming it all on christianity is a bit over the extreme don't you think? Are you going to blame the fact that America has a deep rooted christian community? blame that on history, not on christian Americans.

If you or you spouse are pregnant you have every right to not have an abortion. Nobody is forcing you BUT the law allows others to do so if their conscience sees fit. I hardly see where you should be allowed to decide someone else's fate or question their decision making. Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies also happen to those who are monogamous and use birth control.

Why should embryonic stem cell research be ruled out? We don't know enough about the field to make an informed decision. It may not be the best form but until we know.... You have every right not to donate your embryos for this. Once again, your personal choices have not been infringed upon.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Churches are not being forced to perform marriages nor are couples required to be married in a church. Why should your particular brand of religious beliefs be granted any credence in a governmental contractual arrangement? Marriage has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with the protection of American families. If we were to believe in a biblical form of marriage, then women would have no rights under law. A clear violation of law. You can't have it both ways. Once again, nobody is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex.

So do France, England, Germany, Italy etc. They have been wise enough however to relegate the church to the back row where it belongs. The first settlers to this country came to escape religious persecution, their intent was not to recreate the pogroms of the old country and that is what the current state of relgious hysteria is doing to this country.

I'm happy you've found the happiness you want, leave me the heck alone so I can pursue mine. Remember, your rights do not give you the right to infringe upon mine....

[jywv8]

Today, how do we draw the line?

People have a myriad reasons for why they join the military and the meaning they attach to that service. My point was that their duty is to serve the country, whether the country is currently run by elephants or donkeys, turds or douchebags.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Marriage is also a legal contract. And that is as far as the concerns of the state should reach (e.g. separation of church and state, which I think was the title of this thread)..

You have a point. We need to define "marriage" as civil OR religious term. But like "Kleenex', the word "marriage" has a number of "different" meanings.

Should not my "lover" of 12 years be allowed the same rights that have been granted the right of "marriage" after 12 years? Certain words transcend the "historical" meaning of the word.

For people of my age, it was not that long ago that "blacks" were not able to "marry" 'whites'. So of the discussion today is about "states" rights. So I assume that if NC or SC (no offense intended) ruled that African-Americans could not marry "whites"; some of you might be OK with that? And many of of my relatives, they had not been able to vote since they were women.

The concern I have is that the RNC looks upon those that don;t see their world as the "rest of us do". as a problem.

[Ugg]

People have a myriad reasons for why they join the military and the meaning they attach to that service. My point was that their duty is to serve the country, whether the country is currently run by elephants or donkeys, turds or douchebags.

Even if those who run it commit crimes? Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come to mind. Blindly following the leader is fine if the leader is moral and knows where he is going.


On another note, wouldn't those in the military support the war for reasons of job security? Sort of hard to justify a military that sits around on its butt all the time. If we had a leader who didn't attack every buzzing fly maybe we wouldn't need such a large and bloated Pentagon.

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you or you spouse are pregnant you have every right to not have an abortion. Nobody is forcing you BUT the law allows others to do so if their conscience sees fit. I hardly see where you should be allowed to decide someone else's fate or question their decision making. Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies also happen to those who are monogamous and use birth control.

Why should embryonic stem cell research be ruled out? We don't know enough about the field to make an informed decision. It may not be the best form but until we know.... You have every right not to donate your embryos for this. Once again, your personal choices have not been infringed upon.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Churches are not being forced to perform marriages nor are couples required to be married in a church. Why should your particular brand of religious beliefs be granted any credence in a governmental contractual arrangement? Marriage has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with the protection of American families. If we were to believe in a biblical form of marriage, then women would have no rights under law. A clear violation of law. You can't have it both ways. Once again, nobody is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex.

So do France, England, Germany, Italy etc. They have been wise enough however to relegate the church to the back row where it belongs. The first settlers to this country came to escape religious persecution, their intent was not to recreate the pogroms of the old country and that is what the current state of relgious hysteria is doing to this country.

I'm happy you've found the happiness you want, leave me the heck alone so I can pursue mine. Remember, your rights do not give you the right to infringe upon mine....

For those of us that believe in a "Judgment Day" , we have to to believe in personal beliefs in the end we can not force our beliefs on others. If I am "wrong" I should be willing to "accept" the "penalty" for the "wrong" choice.

In the end we can only do what our "heart" says hat we should do. The "hatred" should end NOW!

[jywv8]

Even if those who run it commit crimes? Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come to mind.

Of course not. The question is whether the order is lawful. But if the order doesn't require the soldier to commit a crime under the law of war or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and if the order is within the authority of the officer who gives it, there's no choice in the matter.

[solvs]

Also blaming it all on christianity is a bit over the extreme don't you think? Are you going to blame the fact that America has a deep rooted christian community? blame that on history, not on christian Americans.
America is not a Christian nation, that's why there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. I don't blame Christianity, or Christians. I blame those who would use religion to spread fear and gain power. And to take away the rights of others. Take a look at the Middle East for how well Theocracies work. If you are a Catholic, would you want a Baptist telling you what to do? How about an Atheist? Now you know how we feel.

(I do believe in God BTW, but I don't use it as a crutch or have any problem with those who have other religious beliefs, or a lack there-of)

[Chip NoVaMac]

America is not a Christian nation, that's why there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. I don't blame Christianity, or Christians. I blame those who would use religion to spread fear and gain power. And to take away the rights of others. Take a look at the Middle East for how well Theocracies work. If you are a Catholic, would you want a Baptist telling you what to do? How about an Atheist? Now you know how we feel.

(I do believe in God BTW, but I don't use it as a crutch or have any problem with those who have other religious beliefs, or a lack there-of)

You are right from what I have been told. I forgot the term; but religion was the last thing that our founding fathers thought of. For if you read any quotes of the "Founding Fathers", you will see a decided difference towards to religion.

Thanks to some here, I have been able to look past what I was taught 20+ years ago. I'll admit that I was brought up on the "Christian" foundation of this country. But then I was brought up with singing "God Bless America". And the Native American was a "hinderance" to our "right to the "western lands".

And you know, if it weren't for so "brave" souls, things may have never have changed. African-Americans (blacks) would still be property. That women would not have been allowed to vote today. Or African-Americans would not be allowed to have a "marriage" between the "races". Or simply be able to vote today without paying a "poll tax".

The "sins of the father" above are not something that we can point to the DNC or RNC for in the past. But we can hold BOTH accountable for. For the sin of omission is one of the greatest sins. Just ask the "borne again" Bush II.

[Daveman Deluxe]

I guess as one of the "right-wing fundamentalist Christian terrorists" I'm getting myself into trouble by even posting here, but here goes, my take on the separation of church and state.

I say it's a good thing, and yet there are issues I am unwilling to waver on. To take the hottest potato imaginable, I have to say I am against marriage between two people of the same sex, and I voted in favor of Oregon Initiative Measure 36, in favor of amending the Oregon constitution so as to define marriage to be between one man and one woman. It's not that I'm in favor of the church dictating what the government ought to do, it IS that I think that homosexual marriage is wrong. I'm not in favor of prescribed religion. I simply have some moral issues I believe in that I am unwilling to waver on.

Is it really wrong for me to vote against measures that I feel are morally wrong due to my faith in God?

[solvs]

Is it really wrong for me to vote against measures that I feel are morally wrong due to my faith in God?
What about those who feel gay marrige (or civil unions) are not against their beliefs? Would you tell a homosexual couple that they cannot get married because you believe it is wrong? How would you feel if they told you that you couldn't love the person you were with? I believe Macs are the best computers in the world, but that doesn't mean I won't let you have a PC if you want. What right is that of me, or the Government, if 2 adults want to be together? Think about a Government that can tell you who you can and can't be with.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess as one of the "right-wing fundamentalist Christian terrorists" I'm getting myself into trouble by even posting here, but here goes, my take on the separation of church and state.

I say it's a good thing, and yet there are issues I am unwilling to waver on. To take the hottest potato imaginable, I have to say I am against marriage between two people of the same sex, and I voted in favor of Oregon Initiative Measure 36, in favor of amending the Oregon constitution so as to define marriage to be between one man and one woman. It's not that I'm in favor of the church dictating what the government ought to do, it IS that I think that homosexual marriage is wrong. I'm not in favor of prescribed religion. I simply have some moral issues I believe in that I am unwilling to waver on.

Is it really wrong for me to vote against measures that I feel are morally wrong due to my faith in God?

Did not Churches regard "inter-racial" marriage as wrong against God?
The point being is that religion does not have ANY place in the rights given to any individual.

If you are lo look at the Founding Fathers, they were ambivalent about the role of religion in society. I am old enough to remember thoughts like yours to be used against those seeking a place at the table that is this nation.

I would assume that you might have voted against African-Americans having the same rights then. Don't confuse yourself with religion that says that it is a choice. Science shows that it is NO. Or maybe Leviticus that states you can beat your slave. Or any number of "hate"filled words, not from God - but by man that wrote the Bible you read today.

Is it not morally wrong to kill another man? Is it not wrong to not to love your neighbor as you would love yourself? Is it not morally wrong not to do unto others as you would have you do unto others? Have you always "honor" your Mother and Father? Should you not demand the removal from office any member of Congress or the Senate that committed adultery?

In my terms, divorce is a Sin. So should any candidate be barred from running if they are divorced? And by Bush's acknowledgment of his "Sins", should Bush be allowed to cast the first stone? He paints himself as the "righteous"; but he is not without Sin.

And for his trespasses over the past 4 years; may God have mercy on his soul for the 1000 military dead, and the 100K+ civilian deaths in Iraq over what the world views as an illegal war.

Don't preach the Bible to me. Or morals. Newet would have been gone before his damage.

One can not take portions of the Bible and other scriptures and try to paint them as the "total" truth. For they may have been inspired by the Word of God, they were transcribed by the word of man.

In the end you can not have it both ways. You can not pass "moral" judgment without injecting your religious views and morals. And you can not cast the first stone if you are not without Sin.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Chip, your post, as I understand it, expects me to allow something that I firmly believe is wrong. If there were an initiative on the ballot to legalize murder, or perjury, or any number of sins, I would vote against said initiatives. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I will not be convinced otherwise. I am not just parroting what my church says to vote for--in fact, I very frequently vote contrary to the opinion of my church--but I am voting for what I believe is right. I believe that a marriage happens between one man and one woman, and that is how I voted.

I do not view interracial marriage as wrong. I never have and never will. The Levitical law barring marriage to non-Israelites was not about ethnicity. It was about preventing those who did not follow Yahweh from being led away from God by pagan spouses--this was a mistake Solomon made later in his life.

I have no answer as to the Levitical issue of slavery that will satisfy you. But under the new covenant, I will say that while slavery was not condemned, Paul said, "You slave owners must be just and fair to your slaves. Remember that you also have a Master--in heaven." (Colossians 4.1, NLT). I do not approve of slavery, though I cannot call it sin based on what is in the Bible. The sin is in neglecting slaves, treating them poorly, and dehumanizing them--slaves are humans and they are loved by God just as much as anybody else.

I never suggested that candidates for office should be without sin. Nobody is without sin. In fact, I mentioned nothing regarding voting for candidates for public office. My post made mention ONLY of moral issues that I find on the ballot in the form of initiatives and referenda.

I did not vote for Bush in 2004. I would not have voted for him in 2000 even if I had been eligible to vote at that time. I am mortified regarding the war in Iraq, and my heart bleeds for all who have died in this war contrived for greed based on the fears of the American people. Quite frankly, I am offended that you would equate my faith with approval of what has happened in Iraq.

Finally, I never cast a stone at homosexual people. My vote to proscribe marriage between two people of the same sex is not a condemnation of homosexuals, but an assertion of what I believe is right.

[MOFS]

I think the point is that you join the military to serve your country, not to serve a political party or the particular person who happens to be sitting in the whitehouse.

I understand what you saying, but has no one read the poem "Dulce et decorum est" by Wilfred Owen? The loss of life in Iraq is senseless and immoral - we have a duty to the people of both our countries to make sure something like this doesn't happen again just cause daddy didn't finish the job almost 15 years ago...

[solvs]

I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I will not be convinced otherwise.
Which is fine for you. You don't have to be a homosexual. I don't believe it is wrong. Neither do most gay people. So who's right? My way, people who are homosexuals can be homosexuals. People who don't have a problem with it, and even those who do, remain unaffected. How does someone else being a homosexual affect you any more than them being a different religion or color? No one is forcing you to be a homosexual. Your way, no homosexuality for anyone because you think it's wrong. Or they have to hide who they are. Or they don't get the same rights.

In a world of Married By America and more than half of marriges ending in divorce, who are you to tell someone else how to live and not to destroy the sanctity of marrige? If you were in a loving, commited relationship with a consenting adult, how would you like it if someone else told you that you couldn't be with them? I glad you are happy with your beliefs, but do not tread on mine.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Which is fine for you. You don't have to be a homosexual. I don't believe it is wrong. Neither do most gay people. So who's right? My way, people who are homosexuals can be homosexuals. People who don't have a problem with it, and even those who do, remain unaffected. How does someone else being a homosexual affect you any more than them being a different religion or color? No one is forcing you to be a homosexual. Your way, no homosexuality for anyone because you think it's wrong. Or they have to hide who they are. Or they don't get the same rights.

In a world of Married By America and more than half of marriges ending in divorce, who are you to tell someone else how to live and not to destroy the sanctity of marrige? If you were in a loving, commited relationship with a consenting adult, how would you like it if someone else told you that you couldn't be with them? I glad you are happy with your beliefs, but do not tread on mine.

Thank you for those supportive words.

This talk of Gay marriage reminds of the people I grew up around that said they had no problem with equal rights, as long as they didn't have to live next to "them".

For some it is easy to hide behind the Bible for their bigotry.

[scem0]

I haven't heard of this corperation - 'God'.....

hmmmmm........

scem0