Mike Huckabee’s statement that he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s standards†might play well with some religious conservatives but likely will scare the heck out of many Americans (click here to see video).
Referring to abortion and gay marriage, Huckabee said this week, “I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards. . . .â€
Not only does that go against long-held GOP principles of states’ rights, it sounds like what you expect to hear in an Islamic country. And how exactly are we changing the standards of an unchangeable God?
477 Comments
Fade to obscurity… cue Huckabee in 3…2…
And y’all think Ron Paul is a nut for following the CURRENT constitution and amendments? Paaahhhleeeezzzeeee
No doubt about it, Huckabee is anti-American.
Hey the editors heard ya political_mama!
Good on them and good catch on your part to get hold of this.
THIS should give everybody pause. Thing is though? Romney’s religion is less understood and he likely has the same ideas about legislating morality by Constitutional fiat. He’s just not as careless about letting it slip.
Scary stuff to have such high hatted folks running for the most important office on the planet. And these guys CAN’T be God’s gift.
bush was that. In his mind anyway.
I’m not surprised that he believes it. I’m surprised that he’s say it.
heh
love the pic title. Perfect!
Outlaw Pork!
Outlaw Shrimp!
Outlaw Cheeseburgers!
These are ALL prohibited in Leviticus.
tHANK YOU EDITORS!
And how exactly are we changing the standards of an unchangeable God?
God gives all people the right to life.
We will gladly take that right away when the life is inside a uterus and it inconveniences us.
No big surprise here folks. What on earth do you think is the basis for the right to life crowd? It’s the belief that there is a God and He gives all people the uninalienable right to life. That right was taken away by a judge.
Huckabee actually dares to make the connection etween being pro-life and believing in a God. What a shocker.
Yawn
Geez, he isnt even TRYING to hide his christofacist agenda.
Theocracy… thy name is republican.
And of course it is HIS interpretation of his god’s word that he wants to use to remake the constitution.
I guess we can expect an amendment enshrining his comments about “wives should graciously submit” to their husbands.
heh. heheh. Heheheheheh. HEEEEEEEEEEEheheheheheh~
I am not a Huckabee fan.
Huckabee is a liberal, on most issues.
However, the Clintons and Obama have used religion, to their benefit, on many occassions.
The attack here is a bit over the top.
—–
However, I believe Huckabee believes stongly in a “Human Life Amendment” — which is a pipe dream.
Many conservative prolifers think that giving the issue back to the states, by overturning Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton, is the way to go — and the most likely path to progress on this issue.
Actually, Roe and Doe can be overturned by simple majority, in both houses of Congress. Well there would be a filibuster in the Senate.
Exactly. You already know that many anti-abortion people show up in abortion clinics because the rules they expect others to live by they can’t live by themselves. They think their reasons are more justified or forgiveable than others because they are different. They’re not any different! Imagine the uproar we’d have if we had to live by the bible. Afghanistan, here we come.
I’ll move. Seriously. I can’t take another 4 years of Christian rule.
We’re already handed over our constitutional rights to trial, our freedom of speech, our right to not be spied on unfettered by the government. I will NOT allow American principles to be torn apart anymore. This would mean war.
FarmGrrl.
Know thy place WOMAN !!!
Dynamite Graven Images!
“I’ll move. Seriously. I can’t take another 4 years of Christian rule.”
Looking at a quarter and seeing “In God we Trust” must really suck for you.
Huckabee is the biggest reason why it sucks to be a Republican these days–he’s spot on when it comes to economic issues, but…
RFL You are just as scary, he wasn’t merely making a connection between being RTL and religious, as many religious people are pro-choice.
He was talking about changing the constitution to reflect the bible principles.
This is as anti-American as you can get.
Oh this will be FUN!
For those who missed it? paulecon is a Romney guy.
What to do? Your political opponent commits virtual suicide promoting pro life? Gotta be a tough call for an already muddled crowd.
Do you use this to finish off Huckabee? Or stick to your social concern?
Principle or politics?
Flip a coin?
Ben, some christian groups view the Flag as a graven image.
The Constitution ALREADY reflects Biblical Principles.
It should not be Ameded, it should simply be followed.
“Huckabee is a liberal, on most issues.”
In what alternate universe is hucky a liberal on ANY issue? And if you are trying to make “pay as you go” a liberal issue… all I have to say is…
Thank you very much! I’ll take that gladly.
I guess raising taxes to pay your debt is bad, but deficit spending and passing on the burden to your children is good?
got it.
I can see it now..legalized shootings at shopping malls on “the Sabbath” as called for in the Bible (anyone working on the Sabbath shall be put to death). Not sure of the source of that quote..could be Exodus?
Selling teen age daughtes into slavery sounds good, too. That is also in the Bible.
Huckabee has proven himself to be a nut case. He needs to go sit in the corner with Brownback.
“The Constitution ALREADY reflects Biblical Principles.” -Paul
I must have missed that part of the bible which talks about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, abolishing slavery, equality for women and establishing a Republican form of government. You constantly prove yourself ignorant on all aspects of reality.
“Conservatives have reason to beware of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, as nearly everyone must know, is more or less a liberal on taxes, immigration, and crime. Many conservatives, and justifiably so, are condemning him for these positions. Without much success, evidently, since he is the national frontrunner.”
http://rednovemberinitiative.blogspot.com/2007/12/social-liberal-vs-fiscal-liberal.html
“The Constitution ALREADY reflects Biblical Principles.”
Huh?
Ah, I see Brownlee has added the “hater” thread.
“He was talking about changing the constitution to reflect the bible principles.
This is as anti-American as you can get.”
-P mama
He was referring specifically to sam-sex marriage and abortion.
Prior to 1972 BOTH were illegal. I guess America has been Anti-American since the day it begain calling itself America.
Ya know who to watch?
Romney is the one with the nastier ad campaign.
I will BET he uses this somehow. Go WILLARD go!
Paint yourself another hypocrisy!
And we thought Christmas was over.
“inside a uterus”
A uterus?
That uterus is attached to someone who owns it. You make it sound like we’re killing babies just because they’re inside a plastic box or something.
RFL, have you been “inconvenienced” by something residing inside your uterus? Will you ever be “inconvenienced” by it?
The Bible also says that women should be silent in church. (Romans I, I believe)
I want to hear the Huckster propose that one.
Besides, isn’t this a non issue? With a Democratic-controlled congress, Huckabee’s not going to be able to single-handedly change the Constitution, right?
“Ah, I see Brownlee has added the ‘hater’ thread.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
See how it works?
WSClark, the Bible also says women are property. It says so in the heralded version of the 10 Commandments. Women, placed right on the same level as cattle. Perhaps back in the day women were considered as attractive as cattle. Then again beastiality was such a problem that one of the 613 commandments had to forbid it (although god originally created animals.
It would take a two-thirds majority in both Houses to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, then it would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the States.
Neither same sex marriages or abortion are likely to ever meet that criteria.
“Besides, isn’t this a non issue? With a Democratic-controlled congress, Huckabee’s not going to be able to single-handedly change the Constitution, right?”
98% of Congress is Christian so he can get that crap through. Depends on how well HR888 does I suppose.
Also, the President has nothing to do with amendments to the Constitution.
“That uterus is attached to someone who owns it.”
so what?
A patient who is on a ventilator is attached to a machine owned by the hospital. Does that mean that the hospital has all rights over that patients life?
HuckaBOOM?
HuckaBLUNDER!
Oh this is priceless. ALL the candidates on the right will be like frogs in a frying pan on this.
The Bible also states that if a woman is raped, her rapist has to either marry her or pay a sum to her father equivalent to her dowry – presuming that no one could marry her after she has been raped.
#
ksagnostic
Posted January 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
“Ah, I see Brownlee has added the ‘hater’ thread.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
See how it works?
Just reading all the atheistic and agnostic experts on Christianity ksagnostic.
They need a larger spew spatula, their hate isn’t spreading evenly enough.
“Looking at a quarter and seeing “In God we Trust” must really suck for you.”
Yes, in fact it does.
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not pleased.
RAMEN!
Actually, even if Huckabee was President it is COMPLETELY irrelevent on this matter.
The President of the United States has absolutely no legal authority when it comes to an Amendment of the Constitution.
Tara it doesn’t matter. He will still have pull on getting something passed, and they can chip away at rights little by little. It does matter who sits in the president’s seat. Look at what Bush has managed to do. He appoints the SC judges…he signs or vetoes bills. It is not appropriate to have someone with these beliefs running our country.
Or would you be ok with Osama being president?
Instead of Slouching to Gommorah, I guess the right was us to Speed to the Taliban…
If a baby has no right to life because it resides in a uterus owned by his/her mother then:
A patient must purchase the ventilator and feeding tube before being admitted to the hospital. That way the patient maintains ownership of the equipment used to keep himself alive.
That’s the only way to maintain your right to life huh?
Sounds expensive…OR a completely asinine justification for abortion.
Oh DO be afraid.
On the off chance Huck or Romney get in? They are gonna get to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. THAT’S where they want to work their mischief with freedom.
The GOP – all for States Rights – except when they’re not.
Actually the Bible says that if a woman is raped then she is to be executed along with the rapist. Unless the rape happens in the city and she cries out for help, then she isn’t punished. However if she cries out in the country she is still executed anyway. Rape, according the biblical morals, is merely damage to property.
And, America was founded on Biblical Principals:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=155501&Disp=0
John Adams:
““Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
You are right Doug, she has to call out and be heard or it really isn’t rape.
Maybe Huckabee would like to amend the penal code to reflect that bit ‘o’ wisdom.
/sarcasm
Doug
Move to the New Testament, please.
Also, Hillary and Obama both go to church. Are you attacking them, as well, with your anti-Christian trash?
Paul, I know this is a waste of time but I should inform you that America is no longer a British colony.
RFL, what a completely ignorant argument. The person who matters most in this equation is the LIVING BREATHING THINKING FEELING human woman.
It is wrong that you want to dictate what a woman decides to do with her own body.
It is her life, it is her decision. There is no other argument.
rfl – not to long ago inter-racial marriage was illegal. Maybe we should return to that as well?
“this calls for war.” etc… when I read those comments, it makes me cringe. Yes, one could have a gut reaction to what is happening with our government that is strong enough to invoke strong feelings that would justify physical revolt against our government. I feel them quite often.
But the bottom line is that we get the government that we deserve. We can overthrow the government every 4 years at the voting booth. The fore fathers set it up so that we can overturn it without picking up arms, as they had to do against the Brits. But America has gotten dumb, lazy. We want our remote controls and cable television. We are have been distracted/pacified while our government has run away on us. BUT IT’S “OUR” FAULT, for letting it happen.
Hillary isn’t using her religion to dictate policy either!
What part of that do you not understand.
Are you saying God changed his mind between the New Testament and the Old? Wow that’d have been quite the change. I guess he was wrong? Interesting…you’d think GOD would know in advance if he was wrong.
Paul, keep in mind you made the argument that the country is founded upon biblical principles. If you hadn’t noticed the Old Testament is in the Bible. Move onto reality please.
Gosh, I havent heard Hillary or Barak or Edwards say they wanted to amend the constitution to reflect THEIR biblical interpretations.
Nice try at the false analogy. You can pick up your loser prize on your way out the door…
It is our fault SemperFi. I’m not going to stand for it.
“Actually, Roe and Doe can be overturned by simple majority, in both houses of Congress. Well there would be a filibuster in the Senate.” Econ at 12:45.
Uh, NO. The principle in Roe is, at this point, constitutional law, not subject to legislative enactment (though I will agree that Roe is one of the less defensible opinions on our history). It is, at least until the SCOTUS decides otherwise, a constitutional right on par with any other. One cannot legislate away the right to an abortion any more than one can legislate away the 1st amendment.
As to Huckabee’s pronouncement:
I understand what he was trying to say. He was saying that he would work toward a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, based on his own religious beliefs.
While his choice of words is surprising and startling, he was hardly advocating imposing a theocracy.
It’s not surprising that religious belief informs his political beliefs and policies; I’m sure it does for many on these boards, on both sides of the divide. It should. Chas, on this blog, has written that he is a minister; I have little doubt that his religious faith influences his political beliefs and advocacy. It seems that, like in many areas, religious belief is only permitted to inform politial policy when that policy is acceptable to the left; otherwise, he’s pilloried. Had he said his religious faith required him to work for health care for all, I have little doubt that the same people who are condemning him would be praising him.
Did we condemn MLK for involking religious faith in support of his policy objectives? No.
BTW – I do not share his desire for a federal marriage amendment.
How he chose to express that intent raises concerns that he would do more than that, and would try to impose religious belief. While those concerns are somewhat understandable, I think they are overblown. He didn’t suggest that, though in my opinion his wearing of his particular faith is more than a bit too much on his sleeve for one who seeks to be the leader of a diverse nation like this one.
No, I’m not a Huckabee supporter, BTW. And my first reaction when I saw this was “Good God, you’ve got to be kidding.” But perspective and stepping back to think about it makes it less shocking.
P_mama,
You are ignorant when you ignore the life of the unborn. You act as if its a coin toss between the life of the mother or the life of the baby when a women gets pregnant. Did you die when you had your kid?
So where is that in the Constitution, Paul?
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
John Adams December 27, 1816
Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
John Adams
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….
“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”
Treaty of Tripoli (1797),
carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)
Oh, and Paul, I should inform you that Huckabee was the one saying he wanted to turn America into a theocracy. Clinton and Obama, as far as I know, never said that so it’s stupid to criticize them for something Huckabee said. Try to stay focused.
Econ101: Please explain to me why Roe can be overturned with a simple majority in both houses of Congress (putting the filibuster aside for a moment).
WS,
“Also, the President has nothing to do with amendments to the Constitution.”
That was before Bush/Cheney/signing statements/Guantanamo etc.
Good one Doug.
Hey I heard Huckabee in a live speech last night.
He was telling folks “if you know someone who is not gonna vote for me,,maybe let the air out of their tires the day before.”
Yeah gimme that old time religion.
As much trouble as the GOP already had with it’s candidates and ol Huck lobbed a grenade right in the middle of it.
WSClark, you are completely forgetting about the Constitution of the Confederacy.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
Paul was right, he just doesn’t know who actually won the Civil War.
“As much trouble as the GOP already had with it’s candidates and ol Huck lobbed a grenade right in the middle of it.”
It’s more like Huckabee took a big dump in the office party’s punch bowl.
GMC70
No, on this one, you are not correct. Congress has the right to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, and has done so, in the past:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html
The libs can gag on Phylis, but they can not argue with her point:
If Congress tells the courts to back off, they have to back off!
It is the radicals, in the prolife movement, that have kept us from taking this course, INHO.
rfl
Posted January 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
P_mama,
You are ignorant when you ignore the life of the unborn. You act as if its a coin toss between the life of the mother or the life of the baby when a women gets pregnant. Did you die when you had your kid?”
I almost did. And I would certainly die if I carried another. It has affected every aspect of my life dramatically. Death is not the only thing that affects your life.
OMG, so if the New Testiment wipes out whatever dumbass stuff is in the Old Testiment…
I guess that pretty much puts the kibosh on all the leviticus stuff about gays you wingnuts put in the kansas konstitution!
You christofacists change your positions so often we need a scorecard to keep up with the players.
I just love how the wingnuts want to govern by the bible.
Except when they dont…
WS Clark
The “Treaty of Tripoli” was entered into under duress, and the copy on file in the Arab world is not the same as the copy on file in the United States.
At the time of that treaty, the “Papal States” were still under control of Rome.
It IS Islamic, Sharia law to impose taxes on infidels.
This Treaty was intended to stop the Barbary Pirates from capturing American ships on the high seas, and holding hostages for ransom.
The Treaty simply makes clear that we are not under the control of a particular religion.
NOTHING you posted refutes the fact that we were founded by Christian men, all but one of whom belong to at least one Church, and most of which came from individual states which had recognized STATE religions. None of them thought that those official state religions were affected, in any way, by the US Constitution.
Paulie, with that kind of imagination, you should be a fiction writer… I think you missed yer calling dude.
Did he really say, “and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards. . . .”?????????????
As a middle of the road conservative, I think many of us were fed up with the religious right upsurping the entire platform for their personal agenda (which many on both sides disagree with).
Let me join the religious right and make a prayer:
I pray we color this candidate – gone.
If Huckabee had his wish and there was a Constitutional Amendment reflecting biblical views on marriage then how many foreskins will I need to present as a dowry (reflecting the inflation rate of foreskins)? Also, will prostitution be legalized so I can have a handmaiden? Then again the bible says that it’s a bad thing to touch a woman so I suppose that means I’ll have to marry another guy so as not to offend biblical morality. 1 Corinthians 7:1, for the Christians who don’t read their bible but still believe in it.
Wrong, Paul, John Adams was a non-trinitarian, that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Other Founding Fathers were Deists that believed in God, but not Christianity.
You also missed several other quotes from John Adams, denouncing the role of religion in government.
The fact that many of the Founding Fathers were Christian in no way makes this a Christian nation, despite what John McCain, George Bush or Mike Huckabee might say.
By the way, Paul, some time back you claimed that Jesus was not a pacifist – I seem to recall that He said “turn the other cheek.”
So where in the Bible does it back up your statement that Jesus was not a pacifist?
“Death is not the only thing that affects your life.”
Only the most fatal.
Paul, nice new version of history you have there. The Sultans in the region charged for safe passage of their seas. America no longer had the protection of the British navy and suffered commercially at the hands of the pirates so they initiated a treaty to remedy these problems. It has nothing to do with Islamic law any more than the toll road to Emporia does.
The treaty was passed with a unanimous vote by all Senators even with the Christian religion comment being read in the Senate. Stick to the facts, not whatever crap you’ve been reading.
Doug it’s not the number of foreskins. It’s the size.
farmgirl
Everything I posted is true.
Refute the facts, if you can. I have posted all of this before, and you lefties have never been able to disprove:
That only James McClung of Virginia belonged to no official religion, and that every other Delegate to the Constitutional Convention belonged to at least one Church, many belonged to 2 or more Churches.
That many of the original 13 States had official state religions. NOBODY at the Convention even considered that the 1st Amendment prevented indivicual states from endorsing Religion.
That the Treaty of Tripoli was entered into, in large measure, to get even with Europe, which even then was resentful towards America. Many of our European rivals wanted the Moslems to hijack our ships, and leave theirs alone. The Treaty of Tripoli simply made clear that we were not controled by a Church authority. (We are instead controled by people who believe in God and vote their free will).
John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And yes, Adams had issues with the Catholic Church.
If I were alive at that time, I would have, as well. We had made a few political mistakes, at that time. However, there were Catholics at the Constitutional Convention. Adams prayed with them.
How dare Huckabee or other Christians base their politics on what they believe!!! Don’t they know that only opinions not in the Bible count?
Seperation of church and state. You keep your church, we’ll take the state, hehehehe.
“NOTHING you posted refutes the fact that we were founded by Christian men”
The Founding Fathers were exclusively old white men that wore wigs.
Are you saying……………
Which States still have State Religions?
Answer – none.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
What more evidence is needed Paulie? A signed treaty becomes American law, not your quotes stating a person’s opinion.
“I almost did. And I would certainly die if I carried another. It has affected every aspect of my life dramatically.”
-P_Mama
No doubt about it. All the more reason to approach the possibility of a pregnancy with extreme care.
This issue is bigger then just how we view the unborn. It’s how we view the right to life of other people besides our self. If we regard only our own life as precious, then we have lost a key component of advanced civilization.
Doug
Try to learn something, today:
“The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,’ does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html
“then we have lost a key component of advanced civilization.”
Like denying gay people the same right to marriage as is enjoyed (?) by straight people?
So, Paul, stop beating around the bush (!) and tell us where in the US Constitution does it make this country a Christian Nation.
A list of the religions of the Delegates to the Constitional Convention:
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Fifty_Five_Delegates.htm
New Hampshire
John Langdon, Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist
Massachusetts
Elbridge Gerry, Episcopalian
Rufus King, Episcopalian
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist
New York
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed
New Jersey
William Paterson, Presbyterian
William Livingston, Presbyterian
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian
David Brearly, Episcopalian
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian
Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin, Deist
Robert Morris, Episcopalian
James Wilson, Episcopalian/Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin, Quaker/Lutheran
George Clymer, Quaker/Episcopalian
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian
Delaware
John Dickinson, Quaker/Episcopalian
George Read, Episcopalian
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian
Jacob Broom, Lutheran
Maryland
Luther Martin, Episcopalian
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian
James McHenry, Presbyterian
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian
Virginia
George Washington, Episcopalian
James Madison, Episcopalian
George Mason, Episcopalian
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian
James McClung
George Wythe, Episcopalian
North Carolina
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian/Deist (?)
William Blount, Presbyterian
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian
South Carolina
John Rutledge, Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Episcopalian
Pierce Butler, Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney, III, Episcopalian
Georgia
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian
William Houstoun, Episcopalian
William Few, Methodist
Paul, did they read the Arabic version to the Senate? And did the Senate all agree to pass the Arabic version? Or did they read and sign the English version which included the phrase: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
Them’s the facts Paulie, deal with it. Your new version of history is just a work of fiction.
WS
Where did I say that any one Church controlled our nation or government?
I am making clear that our founders created a government that would only work for a “moral and religious people”.
Marriage is a “GOD” thing? Rights based upon marriage do not need amended to INCLUDE gays.
They need to be struck down to end ANY special rights.
There are many Americans who never marry.
Doug
All you got is a treaty, entered into under duress, with pirates, which was trying to make clear that no official religion dictated policy to the Unites States.
Your position is weak.
Paul, every one who attends a Klan rally is Christian too. So what’s your point? Are you claiming a bunch of religious people are completely incapable of getting together and forging a secular document like the Constitution? I suppose you’ll say that if a Christian starts a whorehouse then it’ll by default be a Christian whorehouse.
Reality, give it a chance.
Nope Paul, I have the Treaty of Tripoli backing me up. You’re the only one who is claiming the Treaty doesn’t say what it says.
Reality, give it a chance.
If there is any question whatsoever that Econ is a right wing shill to the extent that he has no objective perspective whatsoever.
He just cited Phyllis Schlafley (sp?) (if you don’t know who that is, think Ann Coulter but meaner, uglier inside and out, and even more shameless-she was a major voice of the crazy right during the ’70’s) as an authoritative source. And he did it to tell with an attorney who generally presents a conservative viewpoint that he was wrong.
Cerebral intertia. Remarkable.
And yes, that was a flaming comment. But my intense dislike for Phyllis is completely justified. A truly dishonest and nasty woman.
Doug
You squish around like a water balloon in a kids hands.
You claim our founders were “Deists” and you can not produce a SINGLE name, when challenged.
I deny that the KKK is truly Christian, just as a rational Moslem would disclaim OBL.
“Rights based upon marriage do not need amended to INCLUDE gays.”
Why?
We Democratics got it rolling.
Doug is our designated religion hater. He reads the atheist sites so he can post the bogus, out of context drivel. Check.
J R is in charge of making up Huckabee quotes. Check.
The rest of us are in charge of railing against anyone using the Bible to determine belief, and crying THEOCRACY!!! Go team! Go abortion!!
Paul, I never claimed all the Founders were Deists. If reality came in pill form would you try it? Perhaps swallow it with a glass full of reality? Certainly you need it.
“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”
From YOUR list, Paul…..
Benjamin Franklin, Deist
Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian/Deist (?)
Dummocrat, the quotes concerning Huckabee can be viewed by the link at the top of the page. Funny thing is Huckabee is videotaped saying the words so JR isn’t making anything up, and my commenting on historical fact and Huckabee’s words isn’t hating religion, it’s just pointing out fact.
Ask Paul if you can borrow some of his reality prescription. It looks as if you could use some as well.
Here’s more religion hating:
“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”
“The rest of us are in charge of railing against anyone using the Bible to determine belief,”
WRONG, the rest of us are in charge of railing against anyone using the bible to determine POLICY.
Uh no in the greater scheme of things it is you and yours at the disadvantage there paulie. You and Huckabee and Romney want to change that to force people to live according to your beliefs.
Not gonna happen. Huckabee has alerted America to your agenda.
Hey I wonder if Romney would force us to be baptized into his church? If he were elected I mean.
His faith baptizes the dead. If they had the power, what else might they do?
Wow…
Yet another thread full of complete and total ignorance on the Bible, Christianity, Huckabee, and the Constitution.
I am not even sure of where to begin.
Lets start with Ben.
Ben,
The Bible does not forbid the eating of pork, shirmp, or cheeseburgers. The issue is not even about that. Christians don’t believe that either. I have explained this to you before. Yet you still choose to be ignorant.
Whoops! Forgot one Paul – from YOUR list….
James Wilson, Episcopalian/Deist
Oops, Nathan, you need to read your Bible. Certainly you have heard about what’s kosher and what isn’t, right? Clean and unclean animals? Nathan, you need to read your bible before trying to correct others who have actually read it.
Can’t wear clothes of two different cloths either. That’s a sin.
Hey James Dummocrat?
Find a quote I made up. You are lying.
What does your faith tell you about bearing false witness?
Thanks.
Sorry ’bout your boy there Nathan.
Whew did he lay an egg this time! Open admission he wants a theocracy.
Ol Romney, he’s craftier about it. Used to keeping stuff secret and all.
Shhhhh.
“WRONG, the rest of us are in charge of railing against anyone using the bible to determine POLICY.”
You got it political mama! That way, you can yell THEOCRACY if anyone tries to advocate any beliefs they have that might be bible inspired. Like those disgusting pro-life views.
Doug,
I have read the Bible. It is not a technical manual to be read with no context. It is a book of the history of God’s people, their relationship with God, and a message of hope for all those to come. The Bible is God’s word for His people.
There are alot of things which happened between God and us since those standards were given in Leviticus.
Those animals are no longer considered unclean and may be eaten.
Looks like JM was so concerned about the threatening letter he received because of his blogging that he sat around blogging all morning.
Thus providing more evidence of P-Mom’s assessment from last night (early morning):
Political_mama
Posted January 16, 2008 at 12:23 am | Permalink
Listen guys, it is totally within the realm of possibility that we are dealing with someone who is truly mentally ill. If this is factual, it would be heartless and insensitive to continue to egg him on.
Just remember that.
*****
Anyway, glad to find out that the “threatening letter” was just another of JM’s little voices in his head . . .
JR,
It was not an open admission that he wants a theocracy. It was an open admission that he believes, just like a huge portion of our country does, that the Constitituion should protect the life of the unborn.
“No doubt about it. All the more reason to approach the possibility of a pregnancy with extreme care.
This issue is bigger then just how we view the unborn. It’s how we view the right to life of other people besides our self. If we regard only our own life as precious, then we have lost a key component of advanced civilization.”
Nobody said we can’t care about others. I care deeply about others who have no impact upon my own life. I just realize the issue is not so cut and dried as to say the fetus is as much a person as the mother who must carry it. There are all sorts of big issues that a woman faces when carrying a pregnancy. For that, I will always defer to the woman to make the decision that is best for her. And that decision should be protected legally.
JR,
You constantly make things up about me and my family and you never addressed them in the open thread a couple of days ago.
Exactly what were you trying to do when you were saying those things abuot me at the last meetup I was at?
“Constitituion should protect the life of the unborn.”
Funny he didn’t mention that. Just that the constitution should match what is in the bible. Why are you narrowing what he said?
That’s the problem with your religion and your god Nathan, always changing. Too bad there aren’t any absolute morals in your religion because that’s what I’d expect from religion, especially from a messiah that says that all the laws of Moses shall be upheld. I know, it’s in that pesky Bible and is that bad Jew Jesus saying those things.
Nathan, really read the Bible so I don’t have to waste time educating you on it. Maybe you can find a church that teaches classes on the bible on Sundays. Perhaps they call it a Sunday School, that would be clever.
Doug the treaty of Tripoli never included the text you have shown to be written by the author of the treaty. It wasn’t in the final version. Many say that that verbage was passed around because those being dealt with were Arabic muslims. I have linked an interesting article on the treaty if you would like a better understanding of the origin of this statement. The treaty itself was very short lifed in its final version.
That said our nation was founded on the freedom of religion. Much of history tells us this.
Doug you need also to do some reading on the ‘old laws’ and the new beginning. When the temple vail was rent, the blood of Christ was spread over the old laws. From that point forward the old ways passed away.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
Nathan–
Because God changed his mind?
He was wrong before, but He finally got it right?
Obviously, what was wrong was humankind’s interpretation of God’s will.
This process has mysteriously ceased according to you fundamentalists. No more interpretation of God’s will need ever more be done because the Bible in now corrected for eternity.
Doesn’t make good nonsense.
What makes better sense is that as humankind’s understanding of God’s creation changes, we’re better able to understand his word and will . . .
“It was not an open admission that he wants a theocracy.”
Apart from the fact where he stated he wanted to change the Constitution to reflect the Bible’s laws. Apart from that you are correct.
Political Mama,
[play on words to show how illogical they are]
Nobody said we can’t care about others. I care deeply about others who have no impact upon my own life. I just realize the issue is not so cut and dried as to say the FIVE YEAR OLD KID is as much a person as the mother who must RAISE it. There are all sorts of big issues that a woman faces when RAISING A CHILD. For that, I will always defer to the woman to make the decision that is best for her ON KILLING HER FIVE YEAR OLD. And that decision should be protected legally.
[end]
rfl, you still haven’t answered my question. Have you ever had ZEF in your uterus? Will you ever be able to have one in your uterus?
But I’ve beaten the abortion issue on many, many threads before. I’m not going to derail this thread any longer.
I think while abortion is a hot button issue and many people are single-issue voters when it comes to this, I’m pretty sure (or I hope to God) that banning gay marriage is not a burning, pressing, alarming priority for most Americans.
Besides, Huckabee won’t win with the RR because he seems to actually care about the poor, and Republicans hate that ****.
Ksgrm, have you become Paul’s parrot? I’ve already quoted the Treaty plenty of times, perhaps you missed it. And perhaps you missed the fact that the entire Senate voted to pass the Treaty. Or are you trying to convince me that all government business was done in Arabic back in the day. That’s quite the stretch there.
Reality, give it a chance.
Biblical facts…………..
Jesus spoke Aramaic as a first language, a Syrian dialect.
Christianity is largely based on the teachings of (the so-called) St. Paul. Saul/Paul was a homosexual that never met Jesus.
The term Christ is based on the Ancient Greek word, Christo, meaning the Anointed One. The term Christian did not come about until about 70 CE.
The New Testament of the Bible was written in Ancient Greek, a dead language with little similarity to modern Greek.
There was no worldwide census taken around the time of Jesus birth. Roman records from that time are quite complete and no census is mentioned.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Had He been born in Bethlehem, He would have been known as Jesus of Bethlehem.
Jesus is an incorrect translation – correctly His name should have been translated as Joshua.
When you embrace taking better care as to the already born Nathan….
Come on back and tell me how you are pro life.
Until then? We won’t be writing your beliefs into our laws. Sorry.
Since Huckabee is now toast, whose your new guy Nathan? Ya gonna try and wake Fred up again?
Sol and Doug,
He didn’t say anything about the Constituion reflecting what is in the Bible either.
He was speaking about a very specific issue and mad emention that the Constitution should reflect what is God’s standards in that regard.
If I am understating what he said, both of you are most definately overstating it as well.
It is a beginning to a theocracy. If we amend the constitution to reflect one religious belief, where does it end? Do we amend the constitution to belittle women and their bodies, do we do it to end divorce (that also affects the family, right?).
While you’re at it, just take away women’s rights to property. Afterall, we women aren’t even covered as equals under the constitution yet. So might as well vote us out altogether huh?
“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” -Huckabee
Perhaps you should actually know what the rest of as talking about Nathan. Change the Constitution to reflect his religion. That’s what a theocracy is Nathan, try to keep up.
He should pick up backing from the majority of the bush cult.AKA 28%ers.
“Nobody said we can’t care about others. I care deeply about others who have no impact upon my own life. I just realize the issue is not so cut and dried as to say the FIVE YEAR OLD KID is as much a person as the mother who must RAISE it. There are all sorts of big issues that a woman faces when RAISING A CHILD. For that, I will always defer to the woman to make the decision that is best for her ON KILLING HER FIVE YEAR OLD. And that decision should be protected legally.”
Nathan, this isn’t logical because if a woman doesn’t want to raise her 5-year old, she can give it away. It’s really not the same until a woman can give away the fetus in her womb without killing it, before it dramatically changes her body. When that day comes, I’ll certainly be as pro-life as you.
Ok, now I really am done. And why are all the posts in italics? Capn America screwed it up! ;)
“just like a huge portion of our country does”
Actually, Nathan, the majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose.
The issue only becomes slanted to the anti-choice people when the question is concerning late term abortion.
NOT AT ALL the same thing Nathan. When you hear me get up here and spout off that it’s ok to kill a child outside of the uterus, then you can make these ridiculous charges.
Till then, give it a rest. The ISSUE is that the WOMAN is directly affected by carrying the child inside of her body. A pregnancy affects every cell inside the woman. A child outside of the womb does NOT.
Just seeing if that fixes it.
“There are alot of things which happened between God and us since those standards were given in Leviticus.”
no shit
I think gay people have been saying that about your theocratic amendment to the kansas konstitution.
I love when christians LOVE leviticus.
Except when they dont….
Hey, Paul, I am still waiting on that “Jesus wasn’t a pacifist” Chapter and Verse.
How ’bout it?
Doug if you would read before posting you would see what I was talking about.
”
Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version).”
As you could see if you researched it – your words were never in the completed treaty. Show us something other than the scribbles of a wanabeauthor. These are called ‘working notes’.
rfl
Posted January 16, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
If a baby has no right to life because it resides in a uterus owned by his/her mother then:
A patient must purchase the ventilator and feeding tube before being admitted to the hospital. That way the patient maintains ownership of the equipment used to keep himself alive.
That’s the only way to maintain your right to life huh?
Sounds expensive…OR a completely asinine justification for abortion
RFL – Your argument makes absolutely no sense. People are not BORN with ventilators and feeding tubes in them, women ARE BORN with a uterus, therefore that uterus is MINE to do with AS I PLEASE!!! You are obviously a man arguing a woman’s issue!
“I love when christians LOVE leviticus.”
They also love the so-called St. Paul (in Romans I) when he condemns homosexuality, despite being one himself.
That part about women being silent in church – not so much.
Ksgrm should have read her link.
It completely refutes what she’s saying:
“The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes. In a very public way, they voted to say that “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . .” the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.”
Don’t let the facts interfere with your preconceptions, Ksgrm.
That’s the CON way to think.
“the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. ”
Huh. A muslim nation attacing Americans and we didn’t invade their country, didn’t over throw two governments… Hmmmm What exactly are our founding fathers trying to tell us?
Clark–
Where’d you hear that Paul was homosexual?
I always thought he was just anti-sexual in a neo-platonic way: “If you must get married (i.e., have sex), then go ahead. Better to marry than to burn (in hell for fornication). But better yet is to live celibate like I do.”
“They also love the so-called St. Paul (in Romans I) when he condemns homosexuality, despite being one himself.”
A serious question; I hadn’t heard that before.
Paul was gay? You may be right, but I doubt it. Evidence? You’ve piquied my curiousity, WS.
Ha, all this time, I was wondering why the hell KFG was arguing for the neocons. I need to learn to read KSGRM is a whole different set of initials.
Doug what you read was an interpretation of a man’s research. WHEN THE ONLY SURVIVING COPY OF THE TREATY WAS FOUND THESE WORDS WERE NOT IN IT. Sorry to pull a Charles on you – documents do bear witness to the fact that the words weren’t in the document. Interpret that anyway you want.
“rfl, you still haven’t answered my question. Have you ever had ZEF in your uterus? Will you ever be able to have one in your uterus?”
-Tara
Explain to me how this personal question of yours has anything to do with whether or not an unborn child has a heartbeat, has brainwave activity, and whose physical human form can be seen clearly on a sonogram?
Those are the facts. I’ll keep repeating them as long as necessary.
The surviving copy of the ARABIC version, Ksgrm.
So what.
Ksgrms own link reads:
It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.
People are not BORN with ventilators and feeding tubes in them,
-TDT
Do you know what an umbilical cord is?
Cap a reasonable person would surmise that the surving copy was the original. Our gov has treaties back for more years than this. Do you really thing that a short lived treaty if enacted would have then been thrown away? Really???
KFG,
We have had this discussion several times now. Every time I never use Leviticus in the discussion either.
You have either forgotten that, are just plain stupid, or are purposefully trying to be ignorant in the conversation to suit your little agenda.
The Bible has given a constant and steady theme in regards to marriage, the relationship between a man and woman, and that homosexuality is a perversion and sin in God’s eyes.
Testing.
Wow Pmom. I know you dont like me much but confusing me with ksgrm?
I’m personally hurt by this… :)
I’m too lazy to look it up, but I was taught, in church I might add, confirmation classes ya know, that the “thorn in the flesh” thing paul talked about was indeed homosexuality.
But you christofacists believe whatever you want. Why present facts when it’s all a matter of belief?
Testing. Huh. Weird. Word Press is blocking my posts.
I”In God’s eyes”
WE will NOT be writing that into the Constitution!
Pork is forbidden… SHELL fish (including shrimp) is forbidden… Catfish (no scales) is forbidden… Cheeseburgers?? What the???
Two kinds of cloth is forbidden… Nathan, it’s all in the Old Testament…
Those things are still forbidden by Jewish folks to this day… not so much in Reform Jewish tradition, but still part of the rhetoric….
Let’s try this again.
Nice of The Huckster to be upfront about his Christofascist, theocratic intentions. That’s more than can be said for his lying about his pivotal role in releasing serial murderer and rapist Wayne Dumond.
No suprise to see the Wingnuts on this board trying to soft-pedal the clear intent and message of The Huckster’s words. Special kudos to Nathan, in whose mouth the use of the word “context” as a principle of Biblical hermeneutics sounds like profanity. Way to compartmentalize, dude!
Econ101,
The Huckster is IN NO WAY a liberal; the “Fair Tax” is as regressive on income as it gets. If he’s such a “Liberal” or “Progressive,” Econ101, maybe you can name other liberals and progressives who support the “Fair Tax?” (Hint: Zell Miller and Dan Boren don’t count; they’re reactionaries.)
I believe those are in Leviticus, Nathan… Go read it, and then come back with any arguments…
Thomas Paine, also a “Founder”, was not a Christian and very pro-American. Reading his book’s “Common Sense” and “Age of Reason” around 6 years ago were eye opening and liberating. Huckleberry is eye opening in the fact that he has shown his true fascist, anti-American colors.
Ksgrm–
Your right-wing spin doctors have let you down again.
The “only surviving document” means the only surviving document IN ARABIC. There are several surviving documents in English.
THAT was what was voted on and unanimously affirmed by the Senate as well as the President at the time, John Adams.
It probably also reflects Washington’s belief as well since the first treaty was penned while he was finishing his second term.
Ya gotta forgive paulie there CF.
He’s having a ….confusing day!
A political opponent to his guy blew himself up on one of paul’s pet issues.
What to do?
HEH heh heh
Tara,
My point is that all the same arguments that Political Mom were using to justify the killing of the unborn can just as easily be applied to a 5 year old.
The issue boils down to this one simple thing and everything else is just a meaningless excuse:
-Either the unborn child is a life worth protecting or it is not. PERIOD.
If you don’t believe it is a life worth protecting then you shouldn’t need reasons, excuses, or an explanation for why. Just kill it and who cares.
If you do believe it is a life worth protecting then those excuses, explanations, and reasons shouldn’t matter. It is a life and there is no excuse for killing it.
I’m sorry KFG :( I was so confused!
Nathan, you just made my point for me.
RFL, you know when there is a parasitic twin or a conjoined twin born, sometimes the doctors have to make a decision in order to protect the other. Sometimes that happens when one twin en utero is killing the the other and both will end up dying.
We make decisions based on what is best for each individual person regarding pregnancy/life. Sometimes we sacrifice one twin in order to save the other. If god were involved, I dont think any of this would be an issue, do you?
we’d have perfect little babies and no unwanted pregnancies.
Unfortunately that isnt the reality. Even the most anti-choice of women can find themselves in a position where they are needing an abortion. This is why it is WRONG to insert your belief of God into what a woman can do with her own body.
So take your brainwaves and stuff em. Someone else used to like to use the whole brainwave thing too…hmmm.
Nothing like slandering one of the great figures in Christian history for the sport of it.
Nathan, if I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time here. I’m certainly not. The anti-Christian bigots are out. They do not bring any more to the table than pathetic cut and paste lies from atheist sites.
Chas,
Why are you trying to play a silly game with me that you don’t even believe either?
Do YOU believe those things in Leviticus and follow them?
Why or why not?
I am curious to see your reasoning.
I have already told you the Biblical reasons why we (”we” as in, actual Chrisitians) don’t anymore.
outlander
Posted January 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
That sounds like cut and run to me…
CF2K–LOL compartmentalize, no kidding.
Chas– I think the cheeseburger reference is the kosher rule forbidding milk and meat to be eaten at the same time.
That one may not be directly Biblical. Traditional Jews often take Biblical injunctions and extend them even further “just to be safe.”
Political Mom,
I am not arguing abortion from a Biblical perspective beyond my belief that murder is wrong.
Last I checked, that is something which is already Constitutional and not neccisarily my faith.
You do believe murder is wrong don’t you?
Huckabee screwed up big time. If this gets national airtime, he is toast. If not, he can probably spin his way out of it.
It sounds to me like he was pandering to evangelical southerners. Great plan until it got taped and replayed.
Sol,
It was outlander pointing out what I already know. That it is futile (most of the time) to try and have a reasonable and logical discussion with most of the posters here when their only agenda is to bash Christians and Christianity.
They don’t want to have an honest discussion. They only want to bash.
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
I’m not here to bash. This is the fact, Huckabee screwed up. The bible really holds no place in our constitution. Some of the moral values therein do translate nicely, but to patently state that the constitution should reflect the bible leads on to believe we are on the path of the Taliban.
one*
Nathan writes “I have already told you the Biblical reasons why we (’we’ as in, actual Chrisitians) don’t anymore.”
Besides the sin of pride that you only are the real Christian here, all your posts every demonstrate is the circular argument that Jesus’s words superseded the Old Testament.
Why was the Old Testament superseeded?
Because Jesus superseeded it.
*****
The obvious question is WHY the Old Testament NEEDED to be superseeded.
And the only answer that makes sense is that humankind’s understanding of the will of God changed.
But you can’t admit that because that would mean that our understanding continues to change.
And “real Christians” like you don’t interprete the Bible, you just read it and obey it.
Nathan,
Coming from you, the words “honest discussion” sound even more incongruous than your earlier use of the word “context.”
The day you can impartially and consistently apply the same rules of argumentation and standards of evidence to your own arguments and to those of your opponents will be the day you’re worth debating with.
Until then, forget it. And let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.
Capn’, note……………
“A man is better off having no relations with a woman.
Paul: 1 Cor. 7:1.
Oops, I meant supersede.
Sol,
I agree, Huckabee goofed up to some extent.
The distincition I am making is that Huckabee didn’t say he wanted a theocracy. He didn’t say the Constitution should reflect the Bible.
The overstatements that Doug and others are making are just that. Not the truth.
We have been having these conversations for a few weeks now and it is always the same thing with them.
Will you concede that Huckabee is not out saying or trying to do anywhere near what Doug and the others are accusing him of?
I can be reasonable, but when you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, I gotta take issue with it. You can believe it but that doesn’t mean I will. I’m no athiest, I’m still a Deist (look it up for what that is), so I still have a belief in a Creator. but there is no way that I could tell you what that Creator is , the gender or color of said Creator. But since I was a child, this white jesus (graven image) was hung upon our wall. to me that’s rascist to have a white Jesus when (and this is for those of you who know the Earth is round) Jesus (according to the Biblios) was born in a country of brown folks.
CF2K,
Why even bother responding to me at all then?
Instead you choose to go after me personnaly instead of making any kind of argument or discussing what the topic is about.
Feel free to not respond to anything I say if you don’t want to engage in a reasonable discussion.
CapnAmerica,
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I never said that the Old Testament needed to be superseeded.
Since you are a Christian, why don’t you obey what Leviticus says?
Nathan, with all due respect, you choose to “modify” some Biblical teaching as being out of date or superseded by the New Testament, but:
In the same Letter to the Romans, St. Paul condemns the pleasures of the flesh, presumably homosexuality, but he also orders women to be silent in church.
Now, I know that, no matter how tough a Marine you may be, you don’t have the nerve to tell your mother to be silent in church.
(before you start, that is not a slam on your service or your courage – it’s a joke)
So, again with all due respect, why obey one of Paul’s admonishments and not the other?
LOL
I copied and pasted your word Capn…
Nathan,
C’mon brother. Here are Huck’s own words…
” “I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards. . . .”
It seems pretty clear.
Nathan writes:
“There are alot of things which happened between God and us since those standards were given in Leviticus. Those animals are no longer considered unclean and may be eaten.”
Wow, Nathan, that’s very good!!
And a lot of things have happened between God and us since those standards about “homosexuals” were given in Leviticus as well.
I think it is safe to make a similar assumption… and say that “Those homosexuals are no longer considered unclean” either —
Now, if you want to pick and choose on FOOD, then you have no room to complain when others do the exact same thing when it comes to PEOPLE!!
And what is it that has happened between God and People, biblically speaking??? Why, of course, it would be the Atonement of Christ that took away that enmity between God and people!! ALL are one in Christ Jesus, Nathan… ALL!!
Give that some thought, and you will see it works for any argument you put forth when it comes to throwing out one section that you no longer want to accept in YOUR Bible!!
Huckabee goofed up to some extent.
THAT’S the understatement of the year.
Screwed the pooch is what he did.
Score one for separation of church and state.
Huckabee self destructs.
We wouldn’t bash christianity if you’d keep it in your homes and churches where it belongs!
WS Clark,
With all due respect, why should I even bother to try to explain to you the distinction in what Paul says when you have so far displayed no intention of trying to do anything here other than bash Christianity?
Please answer everyone elses questions on where you are getting your information on Paul being a homosexual before I try to argue with you on what he is saying.
Chas that makes too much sense for Nathan to understand. Even if a 2nd grader could understand it.
Chas,
What section am I thorwing out?
In one sentence you agree with me on not being bound by Leviticus and then in the next you mock me for not.
Which is it Chas? Do YOU or don’t YOU follow Leviticus and why?
and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards
Man I hope the MSM gets ahold of this. We don’t need a preacher leading this nation. We need an american that will uphold Americna values. Many of those construed from morals and values… but gimme a break with this guy…
Chas,
The Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong and a sin comes from the entire Biblical theme on the relationship of a man with a woman and also Pauls words on homosexuality in the New Testament as well.
It is not solely based on Leviticus. I have yet to see a church I have been to make the argument from Leviticus on why homosexuality is wrong.
Yet that seems to be the only place that you and others keep arguing against.
I don’t “obey” Leviticus because I don’t see it as the infallible word of God.
I see it as a historical reflection of the beliefs of ancient Hebrews.
Our cultural understanding of what’s right and wrong have changed drastically since then, and since the time of Paul.
We no longer believe that “slaves should obey their masters” reflects God’s will for instance.
By insisting that everything in the Bible is literally true, like the metaphorical story of Noah and the flood and the Genesis creation myths (there are at least two woven together), you paint yourself into a ridiculous corner of logical inconsistencies.
Nathan,
“He didn’t say the Constitution should reflect the Bible.”
As Sol notes, oh, really?
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/15/huckabee-amend-the-constitution-to-gods-standards
In this case, Nathan, what he said is what he said. It doesn’t matter whether it was said “in the context of abortion” or anything else.
Seems to me, Nathan, that a “reasonable” person should have the intellectual honesty to admit when he’s defending the indefensible. Huckabee said X: you’re saying he didn’t say X. With regard to your debate opponents, you insist on literal interpreting their words in the narrowest possible way; the next minute, with regard to those you endore, you make apologies and offer rationalizing interpretations that they meant something other than what they said.
The saddest thing, Nathan, is that like the authoritarian follower you are, you don’t see it. You don’t see how you compartmentalize in order to go on endorsing the people you unquestioningly follow.
With regard to The Huckster, his desire to remake the Constitution according to his interpretation of the Bible is no secret; it’s been out there for a while. Therefore, Nathan, when Sol, I and others interpret his words literally, it’s in keeping with his commonly expressed views.
Right on spot, CF2K!! Thanks!!
“So take your brainwaves and stuff em.”
=P_Mamm
Don’t like fact that an unborn baby has all the vitals signs necessary to be deemed alive? I’m sorry, maybe your god can change those facts so that you can feel better about your position. Until then, we have the facts as they stand…
“If god were involved…
we’d have perfect little babies and no unwanted pregnancies”
-P_Mamm
So if god were involved, you are saying that there would be no death and we would all live forever with perfect bodies?
If we were all perfect in every way and lived never seeing death then we are the same as gods ourselves. Is that what you would expect if a god is involved?
Do you think that God would make you a God just to prove that he exists?
CapnAmerica,
Tell me the parts of the Bible that you do believe to be true then.
Do you believe any of it to be true?
Seems to me that you are the one who has this nice little place to stand, where you can believe something from the Bible that you like, and then summarily dismiss anything else because you simply don’t believe it.
Are there certain books in the Bible you accept as true or just certain parts?
Clark — Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” has never been fully comprehended… It HAS been argued by many of the neo-orthodox movement that his affliction COULD have been homosexuality… It has also been argued that it COULD have been epilepsy, or leprosy, or several other things that would have been problems in his day… but not so much of a problem in OUR day… I have always thought it interesting that Paul discussed his “thorn in the flesh” as something he accepted as a “gift of God” to be dealt with, and not as something to be “cured” or “healed” JMHO
Judges may we have your scores?
murmuring . . . chattering
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, by unanimous verdict, winner and still WEBlog title-holder
his corner erupts in jubilation and lifts him high in the air
C F 2 K.
thunderous applause . . . Nathan touches gloves dejectedly and retires . . .
Nathan, I already answered the question as to Paul’s homosexuality up thread.
Now, can you tell us why we should obey one admonishment from Paul (homosexuality) and not another (silent women in church.)
By the way, I am not just making crap up about Paul – many Biblical scholars question Paul’s sexuality and his insistence on celibacy and his strange statement regarding a man being “better off having no relations with a woman.”
I responded with due respect – now explain why one admonishment counts and the other doesn’t.
CF2K,
I realize that to say you want to base the Constitution on God’s word in regards to certain issues is to say that you want to base it off the Bible.
The distinction I am making is that Doug and several others simply jump right to saying Huckabee wants a theocracy and accuse him of wanting to turn America into the Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
Those overstatements are what are not reasonable or ture.
The “context” was that Huckabee was talking about some very controversial issues where many Americans faith does play.
I already said I think the statement was a mistake.
He should have been much more clear and concise and I hope he is later.
Ultimately it will be used like anything else to bash him and Christianity just like Doug and others are doing. There is obviously no point in trying to make any distinctions because Doug is not interested in that.
Yes, Nathan, I accept the parts of the Bible that are consistent with Jesus’s message of love and acceptance.
WS Clark,
I reviewed your posts here. No where did you show where you have proof of Paul being a homosexual.
CapnAmerica,
ONLY the ones specifically addressing love and acceptance?
anything else?
Sorry if this turns into a double post. My browser doesn’t show it.
John Shelby Spong is the Episcopal bishop of Newark. He writes of Paul:
“The war that went on between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body, his drivenness to a legalistic religion of control, his fear when that system was threatened, his attitude toward women, his refusal to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion — nothing else accounts for this data as well as the possibility that Paul was gay.”
“To me it is a beautiful idea that a homosexual male, scorned then as well as now, living with both the self-judgment and the social judgments that a fearful society has so often and unknowingly pronounced upon the very being of some of its citizens, could nonetheless, not in spite of this but because of this, be the one who would define grace for the Christian people. Grace was the love of God, an unconditional love, that loved Paul just as he was. A rigidly controlled gay male, I believe, taught the Christian church what the love of God means and what, therefore, Christ means as God’s agent. Finally, it was a gay male, tortured and rejected, who came to understand what resurrection means as God’s vindicating act.”
There’s no way that we’ll ever know if Paul was really gay. But Bishop Spong, who is straight himself, married with two children, defends the scandalousness of this thesis by calling attention to other well-known scandals: that Jesus could be born apparently illegitimate, that he hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, that the Messiah could be crucified like a common criminal, — these “scandals” seem to be that way that God works.
If it’s not consistent with Jesus’s message, it’s irrelevent.
Hmm, Capn, are you familiar with the “Jefferson Bible”? It seems that facially, you and Mr. Jefferson are in general agreement concerning the New Testament.
CapnAmerica,
It is always amazing how you the “Christian” and Chas the “Christian” are always the first ones to side with those who attack Christianity the most…
Absolutely amazing.
” Nathan touches gloves dejectedly and retires .”
Oh no he won’t. He and the Huckabee’s will continue to try and legislate faith.
Huckabee just got caught with his mouth open.
I worry more about Romney. He’s more devious. And his faith not well understood.
Nathan, the “heretic” Marcion proposed that nothing from the Old Testament be retained by the new “Way” or Christians… His interpretations didnt last very long!!
It is far more “interpretive” to understand WHY those things in Leviticus were banned… Such as pork (sanitary); shell fish(scavengers); and catfish(also scavengers); Much of it was banned to protect the people from horrible illnesses not easily treated in their “wilderness” setting.
The other (more christo-centric) way to see this, is to see it from the perspective that all of that stuff from Leviticus and other OT citations, was wiped out, and all was “accomplished” in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. (The law fulfilled) And thus fulfilled, such bans and restrictions are no longer necessary
(Cf. Acts 10 – Peter’s Vision on the roof top) Where Peter makes the remarkable statement: “Truly I see that God shows no partiality!” And he then accepts that ALL foods are Clean, for God has made them Clean!
It is not a far stretch to say that if all FOODS have been made clean in the sacrifice of Christ, then so too have all PEOPLE been made clean in the Cross of Christ — and thus no restrictions or bans on them either!!
Unless, of course, you think food more important in God’s eyes than people??
Jeez, I always thought the consitituion it’s raison d’etre was based on god……Mammon
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22671678/
MSNBC has it but it is kinda buried.
“I reviewed your posts here. No where did you show where you have proof of Paul being a homosexual.”
So what did the “thorn” and the “no relations” statements mean, Nathan?
CapnAmerica,
Does your church use an abridged version of the Bible that I might be able to pick up some time which only uses the parts which you believe are relevent?
I bet money Olberman gets into it. This won’t get by him.
Why, yes, I am, VT.
I have a few problems with the miracles too, especially the part that says anyone can cure disease with enough faith.
Funny how no one seems to have had “enough faith” for about 2000 years and that includes plague-ridden medieval Europe where as near as I can tell, they didn’t have much else going on besides faith.
And honestly, Nathan, is anything in the Bible ABSOLUTE proof without subject to interpretation?
Isn’t that why there are theologians that study and interpret the Bible?
Isn’t that what many ministers do every Sunday with their sermons? If they didn’t interpret, why would they bother with a sermon when they could just read from the Scriptures?
Huh?
WS Clark,
Asking me what certain statements may mean doesn’t prove that Paul was a homosexual at all WS Clark.
If you have to read into statements and try to derive that they meant someone was a homosexual, only proves that you either overstated your position by flatly declaring Paul to be a homosexual or you were purposefully doing little more than your usual which is to bash Christianity.
WS Clark,
What you should have said, and what would have been much more honest, was that you believe Paul was a homosexual based on what he said.
Because you definately have no “Proof” that he was one.
No, Nathan, and ridicule won’t explain away your logical inconsistancies like how the Earth which is dated to at least 4.5 billion years old can only be 12,000 years old.
There’s no Biblical evidence for that perverse and anti-intellectual view.
It’s as clear a case of imposing “interpretation” on the Bible–a very non-sensical interpretation to boot–as one could find.
YESSSSS Money Hawk… Awesome post regarding Bishop Spong, and the “Scandals of the Cross” theological school… BTW, the Scandals of the Cross concept comes directly from Paul, I Corinthians 1:10ff
Nathan,
Still equivocating and spinning, I see. I didn’t expect you to do otherwise.
The Huckster couldn’t have been clearer: the Bible supersedes the Constitution, and his intention, as President, would be to codify this order of priority. Your objection has no bearning–none–on this essential point.
Lest you try to dismiss this as simply a “misstatement” on The Huckster’s part, here’s an earlier instance, from 1998, of him expressing the same goal:
“I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”
“http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/10/huckabee-wants-to-take-this-nation-back-for-christ/”
Seems pretty clear to me and everybody else, Nathan, that The Huckster didn’t misspeak; his error was to say what he truly believes. Why is it, Nathan, that everybody is willing to take The Huckster at his word by you?
He is absolutely proposing some version of a Christofascist theocracy. But if you’re cool with that, Nathan, I can see why you’d have a direct interest in obscuring that fact.
I’ve seen people throughout this blog making fun of the UFO sightings. That’s my point with the Bible. It’s all written by men in the vein of “believe me, it really happened”. It’s all hear-say. If it’s true what was written in Matthew 27:52, then why is there no written record other than the Bible about it? You would think that other Romans or Hebrews who would have seen a bunch of old friends and family long dead walking around would have said something about that.
It is untrue that this county was founded as a “Christian” nation or that its founders were primarily Christian or even very religious. One must only peruse the documents to see that seperation of church and state and secularism were embraced so that the right to practice any/no faith was protected but not endorsed. Most of the founding fathers were “deist” not Christian, if that matters.
CapnAmerica,
The “dating methods” show the Earth to be that old.
The Earth keeps getting older the more science studies it.
There is PLENTY of BIBLICAL evidence for my belief, there just isn’t PLENTY of empiracle evidence.
It is not my imposing an interpretation either.
The pertinent passage is actually Matt 27:53.
susum — It is a far stretch to say the Constitution is based on God, when GOD is never even mentioned in the Constitution. That makes no rational sense at all! Think about it??
“Because you definately have no “Proof” that he was one.”
Obviously, Nathan, I couldn’t have definitive (notice the correct spelling) proof, since I am only 55 years old and did not live at the time of Saul/Paul. My statement is a reflection of the thoughts of many Biblical scholars.
Now back to the question at hand – why obey one admonishment from Paul and not all of them?
Yawn…. This is supposed to be a big deal? We have the usual political geniuses here (you know who you are), who have claimed Huckabee’s campaign dead 3 or 4 times, and then had to eat their words.
How do you all want your words cooked this time?
CF is indeed the WEblog champ. And I am cheering wildly in his corner. I also note that he is a self identified Christian. That should put to rest the idea that that I cant support a Christian.
Nathan? Not so much…
rfl
Posted January 16, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
People are not BORN with ventilators and feeding tubes in them,
-TDT
Do you know what an umbilical cord is?
Fine RFL, People are not BORN with the HOSPITALS ventilators and feeding tubes in them, so your point still has no validity!!! Your point, as I took it, was that hospitals have the ultimate power over a person since their ventilators and feeding machines are inside the patient. My UTERUS is mine, has always been mine, even since I was BORN.
I’ll give it up for the Huckster. No self respecting God hating Democrat is going to be tricked into voting for him. He is sparkling clear about his belief that a country that follows the Bible is the best possible country to live in.
Now if Huckabee had only yammered away talking about “Change we can believe” instead of sounding off on what HE believes, he might even be in the lead right now.
“If you have to read into statements and try to derive that they meant”
heheheheh!
Sounds an awful lot like CONTEXT….
I know where you fundies come up with the 12,000 year old figure.
You count back through the “begats” and make assumptions on how long each generation lived.
Gee, it’s not possible that The Bible, being not a historical document nor a scientific document, might skip over a few hundred generations in the interest of time?
No, that can’t possibly be it. Geology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, physics is wrong, and Lot’s daughters got him drunk and had sex with him and he couldn’t remember anything the next day, and the daughters all got pregnant just like it says in The Bible.
Yeah, no interpretation there . . .
My UTERUS is mine, has always been mine, even since I was BORN.
-TDT
If you UTERUS is yours (which I am not debating) do you or do you not have power over what happens inside of it?
So if the time ever comes that there is a life form inside of your UTERUS, how did it get there?
rfl,
Self-respecting, God-loving Democrats–like me, for example–won’t be tricked into voting for The Huckster, either. But I agree that it’s obliging of him to say what’s really in his corrupt, fanatical heart.
Nathan,
You wrote to the Cap’N,
“It is always amazing how you the “Christian” and Chas the “Christian” are always the first ones to side with those who attack Christianity the most”
I, personally, find it to be amazing, Nathan, how unerringly you leap to defend hypocrisies on the part of your fellow Christians. Doing so seems, to me anyway, to be the most UNCHRISTIAN thing imaginable.
I am going to say it this way: Nathan, your “young earth” theory doesnt give me any comfort of faith in the least way. Empirical evidence is shown to be important — IN the BIBLE of all places!! Post-resurrection story — Jesus appears to his disciples after the resurrection — He says to them… Put your finger in the marks of my hands.. Put your hand in my side.. SEE that it is ME.. FEEL that it is ME.. DONT take it on faith.. SEE it *empirically* (word used for emphasis)
On another occasion he meets his disciples, and asks for a piece of fish (everybody knows that ghosts dont eat solid food) EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that he is ALIVE and REAL — not figment of their imagination…
YET, you would throw out empirical evidence for the age of the universe?? for God’s Creation?? Balerdash!! Read your own Bible, Nathan… I mean READ IT!! Dont just blindly follow what somebody once told you that it said!! Good grief, man, That’s the way most people come to be believers!! Not because of what somebody SAYS… but because they come to a “resurrection Ah-Ha” that they SEE for themselves!! (Reference to Bishop Spong again)!!
Dont take MY word for it… or any other preachers word for it… READ IT FOR YOURSELF Nathan… Not with blinders on… but with your eyes, ears, brain, and heart OPEN!!
As for that Mt. 27:52-53 reference, I have no clue as to why that is listed where it is… BUT.. Check out the beginning verses of Galatians, and take out the punctuation marks, which werent in the Greek to start with… and it MIGHT make some degree of sense?? MIGHT…
“who have claimed Huckabee’s campaign dead 3 or 4 times, and then had to eat their words.”
Actually, Outlander, I have never claimed that Huckabee’s campaign was dead, the truth is I am rooting for him to take the GOP nomination hands down.
He would make a great sacrificial lamb.
WE will not be banning sex either there rtl.
Geez. I have no faith. I HAVE resolved to be more understanding of those who do. It is a harmless thing.
Until.
Somebody like Huckabee or Nathan or outlander comes along.
Guys? I can’t ask Huckabee. So I’ll ask you.
Can you please not inflict your faith on me? As I understand it, it is supposed to be a personal decision. You’ve no business putting it on me.
Who are you to act as agents of God? IF there is a God? I sure aint seen evidence for it. Maybe if he does exist he wants to let me be. Can you do that too. No?
Then you will be fought at every turn. Anyone who continies to support Huckabee after this is obviously a Christian first and an American second.
outlander,
“We have the usual political geniuses here (you know who you are), who have claimed Huckabee’s campaign dead 3 or 4 times, and then had to eat their words.”
Nice of you to confirm that The Huckster is, indeed, the Fundo Zombie that we “political geniuses” have been saying he is.
J R,
I’d amend what you said as follows: anybody who continues to support The Huckster after this is a “Christian” first and an American second.
The HUCKSTER is dangerous for this reason: It doesnt matter if he is just making a reference to one or two items he wants to re-write into the Constitution… IF we open that forbidden door to the concept of a legislated theocracy, then the next time it comes up, it is easier, and the next easier, and who knows?? Maybe it will even open up far enough to let in a ban on “rap” music?? (Cf. another thread here today) We dare NOT open the door to theocracy NOW or EVER.. or we defeat the intention of the Founders who wanted to be DAMNED CERTAIN that we never had to live under the eyes of Theocratic Rule that they fought and died to be free from in their time!!
Huckabee needs to go on some kind of a retreat, and rid himself of that kind of vile attack on the “holiness” of our “sacred” Constitution (A government that even St. Paul could approve – Romans 12-13).
Anyone who continies to support Huckabee after this is obviously a Christian first and an American second.”
-J R
That is the funniest thing I’ve read yet. Don’t you know that all Christians consider themselves to be Christian first and American second?
Okay so if a Christian American ever has to choose between being American or a Christian, which do you think he will choose?
Duh!
CF2K,
I am not trying to spin anything. KFG mentioned you were a self proclaimed Christian.
Perhaps you might understand this then. Everyone has a world view. That world view can be based on different things or presumptions, perhaps even faith.
Mine is a Christian world view. My beliefs, my actions, and everything else is filtered through that.
I will put forth the statement that “most” Christians are the same.
When Christians vote or are a part of government there is a fine line between that “so called” seperation of church and state and doing things based on our world view.
Yes, when Christians oppose things like homosexual marriage, it is because they are looking at things through their world view.
Now the distinction on what Christians want and not is there. It is not a spin. I have yet to meet a Christian who “serisouly” wants a theocracy. Most are just against that as the next guy. I don’t want that.
So here we have two issues, homosexual marriage and abortion, which are very controversial and divide people. Everyone is looking at it through their own world view. It is no lie that many Christians don’t want either and would readily support an amedment to the Constitution.
Now, do they support that amendment because they believe that God’s laws are superior? Yeah. Do they think that our government and Constitution should be solely based on that in every regard? Maybe.
The fine line is balancing my worldview on fiath and government without hindering the freedoms and what not which make this country so great and give me the ability to be a Christian so freely.
This is a hard concept to explain on a blog by the way.
Anyhow, that is why I am trying to say it is a huge jump, to conclude that based on Huckabees comments about these things, that he wants to impose some Christian theocracy.
When you start pulling some quotes from him which actually say that then you will have some backing.
Until then, you are simply reading into his statements with your own preconceved fears and bias something the man has not said.
CF2K — I must point out that even St. Paul, who most obviously considered himself a believer first, and a Citizen of Rome second, nonetheless appealed to the Authority of Rome to determine if he should live or die (the reason for his long time house arrest). In that sense, being a believer FIRST and a Citizen second, is not necessarily a negative thing. You think??
Thanks for clearing up what we all suspected, rfl.
So why do wingnut christians LOVE to say liberals hate america when it is YOU who would throw America under the bus for the fairy tales you hold so dear.
Wingnuts. The more they talk, the clearer it is we are CORRECT about their agendas.
CF2K,
Are you not a Christian first and an America second?
“is obviously a Christian first and an American second.”
Um… JR? That is exactly correct. That’s how it works. God and Country.
But you haven’t answered the question, Nathan, you constantly avoid a direct response…….
Why obey one admonishment and not the other?
Nathan — I WANT very much for you to be a Christian freely in this Nation. I ALSO want those Christians who DO believe in same sex marriage to be freely Christian in this Nation!
YOU, on the other hand, do NOT want other Christians (who disagree with your view) to be as freely Christian as YOU want to be!!
Can you see that problem??
YOU want to be freely Christian… But you dont want other Christians to be as free as you want to be??
WS Clark,
Because I am arguing with people on Huckabees comments, with “Christians” on the Bible, with people who are saying things about the Bible which are not true, with others on my belief of the Earths age, and to top it off you asking me a pointed questions about Pauls statements.
No, I am not avoiding you.
I see arguing with you as a last priority when you have so far demonstarted your intent to do little more than pass off a few trite remarks against Christianity.
Chas, you are forgetting that Nathan is the sole arbiter of who is a REAL christian. He wants REAL christians to be free.
Christians like you? Not so much…
rfl
Posted January 16, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
My UTERUS is mine, has always been mine, even since I was BORN.
-TDT
If you UTERUS is yours (which I am not debating) do you or do you not have power over what happens inside of it?
I believe I do have the power, just as my mother did. And I’m not gonna explain the birds and the bees to you, that’s your daddy’s job.
Thanks for clearing up what we all suspected, rfl
-KFG
No problem!
Now what is this about throwing America under the bus? I guess I am not sure what hyperbolic conclusions you are coming to. But I am sure that is for another time and day.
BTW are you an Atheist first and American second or is it the other way around?
Chas, Nathan has already said that he does not consider you to be a Christian.
heh, Clark. In translating Nathan’s comments from the original wingnut language, I see he really means that he CANT answer you.
I believe I do have the power.
-TDT
Then use the power girl! You don’t need no abortion, YOU got the power.
Nothing new…the Republicans under Bush are doing their best to bring Islamic principles to the US guised as Christian principles.
Chas,
All my arguments on homosexual marriage, when dealing with government, have nothing to do with my faith.
I can, have, and will continue to argue against abortion and homosexual marriage based on other sound arguments without imposig my faith.
It doesn’t mean that I don’t ultimately believe those things because of my fiath, but that I think there are plenty of secular lines of argument and reasoning against them without saying it is my fiath.
BTW, since Jesus only mentions Sexulaity ONE TIME as far as I can tell — WHY does Sexuality figure SO prominently in SO MUCH of Christian rhetoric throughout the ages?? Anybody ever wonder about that??
BTW Nathan — I would very much like to be able to FREELY celebrate same sex marriage as a part of MY Christian Faith… But people of YOUR belief standards dont want MY faith to be as FREE as you want YOUR faith to be!!
WHY do you want your freedom of religion, but you dont want that same freedom for others??
Chas,
Now you are going down a completlely different path of argument.
Do you think that if someones religion requires human sacrifice they should be free to do that?
Nathan —
What possible argument can you have against same sex marriage, OTHER than imposing your religious values?? I mean, since Equality Under the Law is a part of the Constitution??
Former Republican congressman accused of terror ties.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/national/main3720821.shtml
“The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
…
Siljander served in the 1980’s as a Republican congressman from Michigan. He lost his seat partly due to controversy from what was seen as his religious extremism. He asked fundamentalist Christian supporters to “break by the back of Satan” by praying for his re-election.
Fuss reports he later became an author and lecturer on the topic of religious connections between Christianity and Islam and worked for reconciliation between the two religions, which is apparently how he got involved with islamic charities.”
In their fundamentalism, American religious “conservatives”, the nation’s moral values voters, have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with their own Constitution-following American brothers and sisters. Let them put their version of a retribution filled “God” in the Constitution and Americans can kiss their God-given freewill good-bye.
I’ve never met an Christian fundamentalist who lived up to his or her own “moral values.” But they’ll be more than willing to try to get the government to force those down the rest of our throats. Nothing good can come from giving these people power to write “God” into the US Constitution.
Thanks RFL, I do use the power.
“when you have so far demonstarted your intent to do little more than pass off a few trite remarks against Christianity.”
Demonstrated……………. Nathan, it’s “demonstrated.”
As for your comment, Nathan, I would imagine that I have studied the Bible and related analysis with an open mind far more than you have. As I have stated before, I can quote scripture, chapter and verse, with any fundamentalist. I chose, ten years ago, to leave Christianity because of the extreme bigotry that I saw practiced in the name of Christ.
All I am asking is how can you accept one admonishment and not the other – it should be an easy question.
It is not a matter of context – it is not matter of interpretation – it is not a sign of the times back then.
If you are going to use those debate points, understand that medical science has all but definitively concluded that gays and lesbians are born as such and there is a medically proven difference in the brain of a straight person versus a gay person.
If gays are born that way, how can mankind condemn them?
In Biblical times, people thought that those affected with epilepsy were possessed by demons. Now we know that it is a neurological disorder.
The same goes for gays – they are born that way and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.
End of sermon.
Nathan — Why must you and others of your ilk ALWAYS come back with something as STUPID as human sacrifice or beastility when we talk about Freedom of Religion?? That is about as STUPID and IDIOTIC as it gets!!
“Chas.
Posted January 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Nathan —
What possible argument can you have against same sex marriage, OTHER than imposing your religious values?? I mean, since Equality Under the Law is a part of the Constitution??”
There are no valid, supportable arguments against same-sex marriage other than faith based arguments
The Constitution of the United States of America was written specifically, explicitly, and implicitly to be a non-religious document. Like the rules of baseball.
Just because most baseball players are, say, Baptists doesn’t make baseball a “Baptist game.” You get no advantages in baseball for being a Baptist and no disadvantages if you’re a Lutheran. The rules of baseball simply don’t address religion. This doesn’t make baseball anti-religion or pro-religion; it’s un-religious.
So is the Constitution.
You can pray to your God all you want that you’ll hit a home run, but it’s still 90 feet between the bases, three strikes you’re out, four balls take your base.
In the United States of America, no religion gets dibs. Nobody’s “god” is favored or denigrated; the issue of “god-ness” is simply a non-issue.
The Huckster explicitly stated he wants to change that.
That’s what this thread, for all its tangents, should return to discussing.
Nathan, one of the most heinous arguments against Catholics in all of history was the accusation that they ate flesh and drank blood in their Mass… WHY would you bring up something equally as STUPID as that OLD OLD Anti-Catholic argument??
I swear, there is just no fixing Stupid…
Monkey Hawk, I agree 100% — Havent seen the baseball argument for years!! Didnt that argument come up during the Scopes trial, or was it another trial?? Cant remember!!
Thank you Brian!! I appreciate that!!
Just got this email from the DNC:
The Michigan Primary may be over, but Republicans aren’t any closer to settling on a nominee.
Last night, Mitt Romney beat John McCain and the rest of the Republican candidates in Michigan, securing his first major victory of the primary season. Now three different candidates have won the first four Republican primaries and caucuses — and Republicans remain confused and divided. But most of all, historically low voter turnout at the Republican primaries shows just how demoralized the Party’s faithful have become.
You see, unlike the Democrats, Republicans aren’t split because of an abundance of good choices. They’re divided because none of their candidates are what they’re looking for.
So let’s fill in the gap and pick a nominee for them. Vote in the 2008 Democratic Party Republican Straw Poll, and let us know which presidential candidate best represents the values of the Republican Party:
http://www.democrats.org/GOPstrawpoll
It’s easy to understand why the Republicans can’t pick a candidate. The more voters learn about Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani, the less they like their choices.
All the Democratic candidates want to restore our country’s priorities and give America’s families much-needed relief during tough economic times. The major Republican candidates want to continue Bush’s failed economic policies.
All the Democratic candidates want to ensure that no child goes without health insurance. Just like George Bush, the Republican candidates would continue to veto children’s health care.
Every Democratic candidate wants to end the war in Iraq. Yet when it comes to bringing the troops home from a war less than 40% of Americans think was the right thing to do, the major Republican candidates refuse to part ways with the President.
Even some of the staunchest Republican supporters know that we don’t need a third Bush term to fix the issues that Americans care about. That’s why they aren’t showing up at the polls, and that’s why they can’t decide on a frontrunner.
Since Republicans can’t seem to get the vote out, let’s help them with their decision. Which candidate best represents the Republican Party?
http://www.democrats.org/GOPstrawpoll
After you’ve voted, be sure to forward the link to every Democrat you know – let’s help Republicans make up their minds.
LOL!
BTW, Ralph Gonzales the Republican operative who came up with the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” campaign that stirred up so many “moral values voters” to vote for Bush in ‘04 was a bona fide homosexual. I fail to see the value of voting away the American standard of living because people who are so morally inclined are too foolish to do their homework. You got used.
America’s worst recession in 17 years has been brought to us thanks to those single issue voters who thought they could cram their morality down our throats. Instead they’ve crammed $4 a gallon milk down our throats.
… Because Christian fundamentalists got conned on their own values by a homosexual hanging out under their own tent.
Ex-lawmaker charged in terror conspiracy By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_go_co/ex_congressman_indicted
Pssst…it’s a Republican too!! Have fun.
Mr. C. : Thanks so much for your concern. But there are four GOP candidates that are head and shoulders above the Democrat gang of three.
BTW who have the Democrats, chosen as their nominee? What? You mean the Dems can’t make up there mind? I understand. The choices suck.
Maybe someone else will announce.
Every thing I’ve ever written or will write about the Bible in this blog or on any blog will have been and will be truth, directly from the text. Now, Christianity is so garbled and confused that there are over 50 versions of the book in English alone. So the things that I grab from the Bible are gonna contradict possibly, what someone else sees. And that is my point. It was written by man in someone’s vision of a God. The story of Genesis is an exact reproduction of some Sumerian texts. The Bible of today is not and can never be understood. And if you could understand it, that would make you able to understand God, which from what I’ve always heard is an impossibility (remembering that he works in mysterious ways).
outlander:
“But there are four GOP candidates that are head and shoulders above the Democrat gang of three.”?
What are you smoking?
And more importantly–do you share?
Butter, dont you know that sharing thing is exactly why republicans dont like marijuana?
SHARING, as in “dont bogart that joint, my friend” is just abhorent to them.
Cant you just see a republican pot party? Everyone with their own bag and joint saying “I got mine, now you go get yours too!”
hehehehehheheh.
But imagine how much you could auction a good seed for.
Yeah, and then they could CLONE them and patent them and make a huge profit.
But there’s still that sharing thingy…
But if some of their seeds blow into your land, they can confiscate it because of patent infringement (just like Monsanto).
Well, hemp grows wild out here, so I guess Monsanto will be confiscating lots of ditch weed and useless farm ground…
Just watched the video and read some comments.
When Huckabee states he wants to bring the constitution up to God’s standards, what exactly does he mean? All of God’s standards? Part of them? Standards based on whose religion? Who gets to choose the religion? Does the Constitution change each presidential election so it matches the new president’s religion?
If you all want that kind of nonsense, plus a divided nation like you have never seen, then by all means, vote for Huckabee. Then all schools will be teaching ID, the neo-cons will be in total control, and the dark ages will rise again.
If that doesn’t suit you, then use some intelligence and dump this moron from the presidential election list.
When The Dallas Morning News endorses one, he’s got to be a certifiable nutcase.
Econ101
Posted January 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
The Constitution ALREADY reflects Biblical Principles.
It should not be Amended, it should simply be followed.
AMEN
JUDGE ROY MOORE
Some of you may be wondering what Judge Roy Moore has been doing
since he was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the
Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall.
The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama.
Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the
Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of
his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice
law in Alabama. The judge’s poem sums it up quite well.
Please read the poem he wrote, below.
America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims’ pride; I’m glad they’ll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters, abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty; your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly, poisoned by cocaine
Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.
>From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
>From the teaching of God’s love and a need to always pray.
We’ve kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.
We’ve voted in a government that’s rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges; who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb.
You think that God’s not angry, that our land’s a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God, from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way,
Then God will hear from Heaven, and forgive us of our sins,
He’ll heal our sickly land and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful, if you don’t – then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.
~~Judge Roy Moore~~
“when you have so far demonstarted your intent to do little more than pass off a few trite remarks against Christianity.”
Demonstrated……………. Nathan, it’s “demonstrated.”
That has to be one of the most telling Freudian slips I’ve seen in a long, long time. What do you really think, Nathan?
JM: You asked a lot of good questions that you evidently didn’t think enough of to worry about getting the answers to.
BTW folks, did you know that presidents can’t amend the constitution? Judging from the posts here, a lot of you don’t.
That is all. Demagogue away.
JM Walker,
Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for 10 years.
He didnt bring all “that kind of nonsense”
He didn’t bring “a divided” [state] like you have never seen.
All the schools are not teaching ID.
The neo-cons were not in total control.
And the dark ages will DID NOT rise again.
Typical fear mongering.
No, they can’t amend the Constitution. But what the main job is, is Commander in Chief. THAT guy would be leading our military?
Onward Christian soldiers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best way to show a fascist or a dictator is to let them act like one.
Outlander,
Obviously the day after Huckabee was elected (if he were) he would rewrite the Constitution and we would be a theocracy and anyone who opposed him would be executed in a football stadium Talban style…
At least that is what the fear clouded minds of those on the left actually believe.
Steven,
It is called a typo. Please feel free to read into it all you would like. I am sure nothing I could say would stop you anyhow.
“At least that is what the fear clouded minds of those on the left actually believe”.
That is precious.
So-called Christians are apparently all Republicans (according to these posts from “the right”) and they are the ones who fear this invisible enemy (Al Qaeda) and fear being killed by evil brown men, bent on destroying our freedom. The same people who ask what Jesus would do and then do what they want anyway.
We will know facism when it comes – It will come wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross. {Old Quote -and No, I dont feel like looking up the link – you want a link, google it}
I dont know of anybody who fears a theocratic takeover that fears of stadium style executions.
I do know of those who fear a theocratic takeover who do fear a sort of “reverse” mark of the beast, or should I say, “mark of the cross”
The Republicans have long sought to establish a theocracy in the United States. And the scary thing is that they ALMOST pulled it off. Huckabee is just saying what is the true Republican goal. And of they pull it off, I will honestly think about Canada because I do not wish to live in a theocracy. If I wanted that, I would move to Iran!
Pleefer,
No not all Christians are republican.
How invisible was Al qaeda when they flew 3 planes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon?
When they ambush our vehicles in Afghanistan?
When they blow up embassies around the world?
When they were training in Afghanistan to further death and destruction?
They are only invisible when you bury your head in the sand like an ostrich.
They look really good on the guided missle monitor just before the kaboom though!
Outlander,
If you know the answers, feel free to post them. If not, then post your own questions.
Nathan,
You are posting under the belief Huckabee’s religious beliefs reflect your own. So his wanting to bring the Constitution up to God’s standards (that IS what he said, by the way) doesn’t conflict with your own beliefs.
But let me ask you this: Suppose a presidential wanna be was a Muslim, and said he thought the Constitution should be brought up to Allah’s standards? Would you not want to know which branch of the Muslim religion he was referring to? After all, at least one sect wants this nation destroyed.
Where does one stop, when it comes to “bringing the Constitution up to God’s standards”? That is a valid question, and one that was answered in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. THAT is exactly why both state a separation of church and state. Huckabee’s suggestion flies in the face of both, and, in my opinion, should disqualify him from running for the job. The Constitution HAS stood the test of time, and doesn’t need Huckabee to tell us it is wrong. Politics and power are interlocked, but in this case, I think Huckabee is trying to unbalance that. That is a bad thing.
Why is everyone typing in italic?
Ben Franklin before death repudiated some of his previous “deist” statements, and said this:
—–
“A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing “erratum.” In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion…:
“ As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….[3] ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
“Steven,
“It is called a typo. Please feel free to read into it all you would like. I am sure nothing I could say would stop you anyhow.”
Sorry, I mistook you for a person who might have a sense of humor. Silly of me to do that, huh? Anybody he can’t laugh at themselves deserves their misery.
Should be “*who* can’t” – No Freudian slip, I swear. :)
Huckabee, is smart enough to know what a lot of folks here don’t seem to understand. The amendment of the constitution is not an easy thing to do. If it ever comes to it, we will all have plenty of time to cuss and discuss every maddening, minute word in excruciating detail.
You may now return to your regular scheduled demagoguing.
Chas, your are right it is a stretch. I guess my point is that Huckabee wanting to orient to-wards the Bible mean he is aware that man can serve God or Mammon, not both. If God isn’t written in the Constitution the presence of a Diety in all things descending from it certain is, the Pledge or constant assurance of a the intent of a Christian Nation by varous pundits since. The lack of the written word does not mean the lack of intent or presence. Many places have been very well served by clergy or lay preachers who gained office, bringing their convictions with them. As another stretch, Locke was very much present in the founding of America but not mentioned either. He was an Englishman (1632-1704)who first came up with the division of powers concept to assure mans rights are not abused.
JM Walker,
The Constitution has been amended many times. Would you say it was fine and “stood the test of time” before the amendment which repudiated slavery?
The problem is not what Huckabee said, it is that several of you are treating it as if it were a stand alone commnet or part of his plan or policy in writing.
It was a comment in regards to a couple of the most controversial issues.
I really doubt he meant it to be an all encompasing view and plan of action which he wishes to implement to full capacity as is suggested by the fear mongerers here including yourself.
I don’t need to know what “brand” of Christianity he is.
I can simply look at his history in public office, his history as a preacher and Christian and clearly see that it is not anything like what you and the other fear mongers are trying to say.
Well I’d like to thank some of the faithful for their candor anyway. Huckabee got caught in an accidental bit of that.
So? I guess my resolve to be more tolerant of you folks is shame on me huh?
Because even when I ask nice, you respond that one way or the other you are going to shove your faith down my throat. Oh you don’t say so directly like Huckabee did. But the sentiment is there.
Don’t you see what that does? It makes folks like me who have no stake your fight just want to do some shoving of my own. You push me, I push you.
Why?
Why is it important for you to get my kid praying in school? Why is it wrong for a friend of mine to marry the person she loves? Because YOU say God says no? Sorry. I need the higher authority to speak to me personal on that one. I don’t like second hand messages.
While not religious, I WAS “pro life” once. So many of you, you want to have every baby born. But you are the same folks who wail when a little community help is asked to feed or care for that child. That’s HYPOCRISY in raw form. You cannot be sorta pro life anymore than you can be a little bit pregnant. And how much MORE could you do to help with the considerable zeal that you have? “Go unto all nations etc.” is ok but “It takes a village” is blasphemy? I can’t make that work.
Like I say. I know not your God. I don’t have a line to him like you do. Or if I do, he hasn’t called. So just on your say so, I can’t let you rewrite the fundamental laws of this country if it is in my power to stop you. You think you have something to give to me. I don’t want it. I don’t understand it. And given the sorry state of the world I really don’t want to. I’d have more critiques than prayers. If you think something untenable is lost to the nation by NOT converting me (like in that poem upthread) how different ARE you from the Taliban? And I’m sorry I just don’t buy that “God” worries that much about me. I think he’d give ya a pass for NOT raising my voice.
So game on. There is good that you do. There are laws based on your ideals. But unless the Supreme being weighs in? I don’t see changing the Supreme document to accomodate you.
WS
Jesus told us to “turn the other cheek” when we are slapped.
Jesus did not tell us to turn the cheeks of those who are our care.
Jesus did not tell us to let someone kill or injure us or those in our care.
Jesus said to sheath the sword, when he was being arrested.
Jesus did not tell anyone to get rid of his sword.
Jesus was Jewish.
“I come to fulfull the law” He told us.
Jesus never questioned the authority of the Jewish officers, with weapons.
Jesus also cleaned out the temple in an action that can not be called “peaceful”.
Jesus was not a pacifist.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me” That sounds like an offer. Why do some of you all want to translate it into a mandate?
Somebody upthread said the bible could not be understood.
I rather liked that.
I like the parts that tell us to help one another and otherwise be tolerant.
Some of you can make the same words say something different. Why not err to kindness?
The people in Christs time. And I do believe he is at least based on a real person or persons. The people then had so little. They eeked out an existence that even for the kings would be third world conditions now. We have considerable more. Why do you all want to share the ideas and the words but not the plenty?
Nathan,
You’re so locked into the Christian ethic, you are failing to see my point. My point is: What Huckabee is saying could be said by any religious person, whatever that religion is. So, which “standard of which God does one refer to when they talk about bringing the Constitution “up to God’s standard? I suggest you listen to exactly what he said.
There is no fear mongering going on here, it is a discussion about what Huckabee said in a recorded statement. I think it flies in the face of the Constitution, and that bothers me. Ain’t no fear there, just a love of this country.
Michelle
NAME THE DEISTS who were our founding fathers, would you?
“Why do you all want to share the ideas and the words but not the plenty?”
JR, it never hurts to hear encouragement to give generously. Is that what you meant?
I don’t know what you THOUGHT you were doing with the Ben Franklin bit there paulie.
Reads to me Franklin remained a scientifically guided skeptic to the very end. He wanted proof for himself. Sounds like me.
…….the republic party candidates just keep nailing more nails into their 2008 presidential coffin.
No outlander. It is not. You are doing just short of the supply side Jesus argument.
I keep hearing about all these blessings. Some people who have a lot they say they are blessed.
You all are pretty free with wanting the government to front the ideas. But goverment practicing what you preach in other ways doesn’t jibe? I can’t make that work.
“Jesus was not a pacifist.”
Neither are liberal progressives.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
*****— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,*****
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”"
Keep screwing with my freedoms and watch how long it takes me exercise my Second Amendment rights. And, I’m not the only one.
susum writes >>>
“Locke was very much present in the founding of America but not mentioned either. He was an Englishman (1632-1704)who first came up with the division of powers concept to assure mans rights are not abused.”
========================
That might well be true… And our Constitution may well have been influenced by other philosophers too…
BUT — I dont see an Article or an Amendment that guarantees us the Freedom of/from Locke, or any of those others!
I DO see the First Amendment that guarantees the Right to Freedom of Religion!!
“However, the Clintons and Obama have used religion, to their benefit, on many occassions.
The attack here is a bit over the top“.
“Slide of hand”, using the tactic of distraction to take the focus away from the real topic.
By bring into the discussion a comparison of similar but different occurrence.
This combine with “discount by excess” claiming that the allegation is extreme and beyond a reasonable judgment of the fact or truth.
Here a few days ago I gave a left handed compliment to Huckabe and now he does exactly the opposite as he said he would do. He stated that religious believes were a personal matter and would not dictate his actions as President. But then here he is stating that it should not only dictate but alter our forum of Government to reflect his personal religious views. Christians neither do themselves or God any serves but such actions.
They are in the serves of the apposing force and if they win in their attempt to force other to live and act as if they are of the same faith. Then will cause the “death of God” in the minds of man.
rfl
Posted January 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm | \l “comment-275095″
“That uterus is attached to someone who owns it.”
so what?
A patient who is on a ventilator is attached to a machine owned by the hospital. Does that mean that the hospital has all rights over that patients life?
Bad analogy there, as in fact yes the hospital does have the rights over that patients life.
The court will always side with the judgment of the professionals as to the best interests of the patients.
Regardless of the family and friends wishes or desires, though all will be considered it is the judgment of the “Hospital” that will be the deciding factor in a non-bias, unemotional, determining of the outcome of the patient.
JM Walker,
Your comments are much more reasonable now, but your first set was most definatley fear mongering.
I agree the comment was dumb for a public speech while running for President. It will be twisted beyond reason by those who don’t like Christians and those who don’t like republicans.
He should be much more careful with how he says things.
Steven if you read this entire thread you will understand why Nathan is testy. It has been an all day Christian bash as is usually the case when the name of God is invoked.
Huck is not my choice nor is he any of my RR friends. We aren’t one issue voters. We are poles apart on immigration, taxes and other important issues. To suggest that he would change the constitution is ludicrous.
Mary C who is not a Christian is very pro life but no one here can recognize that it is purely a personal choice to elevate all life to a higher degree. Same sex marriage is one of those arguments that has been around for many moons. I am opposed to it for many reasons and only one of them to do with my religion.
Say we open up marriage which now says – one man one woman – now it can be two men, two women, why stop there – actually can we stop there. What if a son wants to marry his dad, maybe a daughter wants to marry her mom so she can be taken care of in her old age. Plural marriages have to be next – there are after all more women than men needing taken care of – who can say a man can’t love all 20 of his wives. I could go on. Can you imagine the book of laws that will have to be written.
I am going to ask everyone on the blog to only have opinions bases on beliefs that don’t offend me. After all I am no longer to talk about the fact that I am Christian so it doesn’t seem like to much to ask.
How much more peaceful it will be around here.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution is a document outlining how we should be governed. It is a Rationalist document, a tech manual, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. It doesn’t matter if the signers were Christians, or frogs. Find one word in the document establishing the U.S. as a Christian nation. Or shut up.
Econ-dude,
James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine were all Deists.
Nathan,
I don’t buy for a minute that AlQaeda is this huge network, capable of annihilating America. I don’t believe they could pull off (based in a cave in Afghanistan) superceding our entire county’s homeland defense mechanism. There are IED being planted, but by whom? The same folks that brought us the Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us into a full scale wa…no wait, “Police Action” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident. Or the same people that takes care of the wounded vets after they get home mangled? Maybe the same folks that Eisenhower warned us about when he left office? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340349985118918525 or maybe the same people that pulled off the USS Liberty incident (in which we allowed Israel to attack and try to sink it to get us into the Egypt and Israeli War (Six-Day War). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Yeah, those guys really do hate US.
>> Mr. Twisty
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution is a document outlining how we should be governed. It is a Rationalist document, a tech manual, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. It doesn’t matter if the signers were Christians, or frogs. Find one word in the document establishing the U.S. as a Christian nation. Or shut up. <<
Ditto, here.
Mr Twisty where is this attitude coming from? How did you form such a hostile outlook?
Explain the basis for your opinion please.
My head is waay out da sand.
Ok guys, this thread has been so hot, it’s expanding faster than I can catch up. So forgive me if I say something someone else says.
It is very telling to me that Nathan and Outlander and RFL are all still defending Huck.
It tells me one thing…that they are not interested in this country’s constitution, they only care about converting every last one of us into their view of Christianity.
There is no Constitution in their eyes, unless it suits them. These Baptists are dangerous to the American way of life. Instead of letting them change America, let them go off and create their own little sect/nation.
I will stick to the beliefs of my forefathers who say everyone has the right to their own beliefs.
It bothers me greatly that a layperson of any religion attacks a minister…one who gave his life to God, as being unChristian…and to say all Christians are the same? No. They’re not.
You three and Parkay on this board, are the best reason for why we can’t tolerate you and your views….leading to anti-christian views.
YOU ARE the Taliban of Christianity.
Personally, I would be equally concernred no matter WHO the candidate would be, who would dare utter a desire to open the door to theocracy even by a half-inch… I have nothing against Huckabee or his Faith… What I have against him is his suggestion that the Constitution needs to be changed into something that it clearly was not intended to be… a religious document…
JR said earlier today that he didn’t want anyone to make his son pray in school. To my knowledge this hasn’t happened in decades. I haven’t seen one Christian on this blog say they want creationism taught in our public school either instead or or along with evolution. Huck made a poorly thought out statement and everyone is seeing red and calling for his downfall.
I guess I missed something here. No one got excited when Hillary said MLK by himself could have never got the Civil Right act passed. It took LBJ to make it happen.
Just checking bias’.
The Preamble to the Constitution is a “hostile outlook.” That’s a really unAmerican and unpatriotic attitude. There are some people who don’t respect this country and its Constitution who really need to leave it. I’d recommend Canada to the naysayers of America’s freedoms – the religious fundamentalists – but they don’t want you, either. Try Iran. Their laws will be more in line with your tastes.
Love it or leave it, Fundies. But, we’re not going to let you change it.
Chas are you in agreement with Pmom that Nathan and the others are attempting to change the world to reflect their beliefs? I haven’t seen that on today’s thread. They were defending Hucks right to free speech, saying his words probably didn’t mean what other are saying, and saying that the voters will have the last say.
So then how did this become a bashing session against Nathan?
Mod what changes has someone on this blog suggested today? I might have missed something. I am very fond of my country and would change very few things about it.
What were those proposals now, I am curious?
I agree that the fundies want to change the constitution to suit for beliefs.
the fascist-taliban-christians
“I haven’t seen one Christian on this blog say they want creationism taught in our public school either instead or or along with evolution.”
Of course not, Ksgrm. Why would a Christian post anything about teaching Creationsim in the public schools on this blog when they can elect people who intend to do just that (veiled in the lie of “intelligent design”) to the Kansas State Board of Education???
You three and Parkay on this board, are the best reason for why we can’t tolerate you and your views….leading to anti-christian views.
YOU ARE the Taliban of Christianity.
————
Ah shucks mama, you’re just saying that.
Well, not counting changing the United States Constitution which is the topic of this blog….
(Please note the dripping sarcasm.)
Explain the basis for your opinion please.
The Constitution, ks grm. You should read it.
Look libs, I think what Huck said was dumb, but I understand his position and I think it was made in good faith, in the legal meaning of that word.
Also, Huckabee is NOT a conservative. He does not like Federalism, is not familiar with “Subsidiarity” which is the religious foundation for Federalism, and does not understand how to make progress on the social issues, in my opinion.
It would be OK with me to leave “gay marriage” up to the states, if it were not for the requirement that states respect the laws of other states.
On abortion, I think the Federal Government should ban taxpayer funding. I also think that the Federal Government should be involved, when patients, especially minor patients, cross state lines. I also think late term abortions should be illegal, at the Federal level.
However, the main thing Congress should do is pass a simple resolution telling the Supreme Court of the United States that it no longer has jurisdiction over the abortion issue.
That would give the issue back to the states.
Where it belongs.
—anyone who reads the —
“Constitution knows that Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html
“So then how did this become a bashing session against Nathan?”
What else do the Leftist Libs do on this board but bash, insult and attack others?
It’s their trademark – the true party of rancor and they prove it everyday.
Mod so will we now have a new check before being allowed to vote.
What criteria do you use to decide on a candidate? We could start with that one I guess.
Of course some people might not want to answer this question. Maybe we could put a big sign on the door saying ‘All Christian are not allowed to Vote their Convictions’. Yep that will do it.
Love that constitution don’t you Mr Twisty.
>> Mr. Twisty
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
Explain the basis for your opinion please.
The Constitution, ks grm. You should read it. <<
Christian conservatives think their ability to cherry-pick their way through Leviticus and treat the Bible as if it’s a magical book of spells and incantations makes them American patriots. Sad, deluded bunch they are.
hey JimmieMac……..you forget to use the word “dogpiling”!
Actually
I think a conservative should lift quotes from the Christian hating left, on this Blog, and others, and use them in a campaign to show what we mean, when we talk about leftist Fascism and liberal intolerance.
You all go to church at the Hotel, don’t you?
Mod, Mr Twisty, Apophis you aren’t really making any headway in your arguments. When your rational is how ugly and insulting can I be to the opposition then you will have a hard time making a logical argument. Try harder surely between the three of you – you can come up with one good statement to convince me that your method of picking candidates is better than say the one I use for instance.
You’re not patriot Ksgrm. You don’t refer to any of this nation’s documents in your assertions of what this country should be like. I NEVER said there should be a “new check before being allowed to vote.” I think you’re a traitor to this nation and it’s ideals and you should be deported far from its freedoms. You don’t respect them, leave. If there was anything I could do to hasten your departure, I would. YOU don’t deserve to live in America. The quicker you’re go, the better off this nation will be.
Hope I didn’t equivocate or leave any room for misunderstanding my intentions.
“leftist Fascism and liberal intolerance”
Now that is funny………..
insert the correct terms:
“republic party Fascism and conservative intolerance”
KsGrm — Huckabee was extremely clear as to what he meant by what he said. It would be a waste of time to try to spin what was stated, and on TAPE, into something that he did NOT say.
Now, as to my response to what he DID say, go back and read up-thread. I did NOT spin it at all.. I simply stated that I would not agree with ANY candidate who would suggest opening the door to theocracy by even a half-inch.
If you cannot see that what Huckabee said is his desire to open the door to theocracy… not actually making the entire jump… just getting a start… Then, I am sorry, but you just arent listening with your ears all the way turned on… Because that is exactly what he said!!
Pmom are you hanging out at hotels now looking for a church? Not sure who you were looking for there but hope you found them.
>> Econ101
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
Actually
I think a conservative should lift quotes from the Christian hating left, on this Blog, and others, and use them in a campaign to show what we mean, when we talk about leftist Fascism and liberal intolerance. <<
Be sure to include that we’re also the only ones on this board quoting distinctly AMERICAN documents: The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
Ksgrm
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
Chas are you in agreement with Pmom that Nathan and the others are attempting to change the world to reflect their beliefs?
Charles that was a good answer to someone elses question but it wasn’t mine. I reposted it just for you incase you had trouble reading it.
KsGrm says: “So then how did this become a bashing session against Nathan?”
I swear sometimes I think KsGrm is Nathan’s mama the way she jumps in so often to defend the boy. :roll:
It’s enlightening to see the anti-Christian bigotry demonstrated by the “tolerant” left.
Small people.
Mod
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm | Permalink
>> Mr. Twisty
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
Explain the basis for your opinion please.
The Constitution, ks grm. You should read it. <<
Christian conservatives think their ability to cherry-pick their way through Leviticus and treat the Bible as if it’s a magical book of spells and incantations makes them American patriots. Sad, deluded bunch they are.
Mod you are good at judgements but as you and your side have so aptly said today no one should be doing that. What criteria are you using to come to these conclusions or are you just a leftist judgemental person who hates anyone to the right of you?
Chas it appears you are trying to dodge the question. Is this what is happening. All day long you and your leftist buds have lambasted Nathan and I didn’t jump in once so my timing shouldn’t be suspect unless you are trying to dodge something.
Aren’t going to answer the question?
Thats very good KsGrm — I wasnt responding to THAT question, which of course is pure bogus… I was, however responding to another one of your comments… the one about Huckabee exercising his free speech, and that was what some were defending. However, I dont recall ANYbody saying they were defending Huck’s right to freedom of speech!! What you been reading?? Maybe there really is such a thing as a parallel universe… that might explain it…
I agree there is fascism, in the form of political correctness, that infects the left.
Still dodging Chas – how do you miss a question I have posted twice just for you. And you think I live in a parallel world ‘Sugar’.
Aren’t going to answer the question?
The answer to your question about me and PMom is simple (for me at least – ask her for her opinion, since she hasnt told me) My answer is: NO not at this point that is not what Nathan is doing… but he MIGHT join in such an adventure, given the opportunity. :-)
Good Lord, “woman” do you have a fetish for “sugar” ??? I rememer another time when you were nearly positive I was WSClark too!! Get over it, already!! I am Chas. Sugar is Sugar.
Chas I didn’t have to ask she posted it upthread just before I asked you that question. You give a lot of credence to the song lyrics ‘if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything’.
KsGrm: Puhhhleeeeze — I am WOMAN. Chas. is MAN. Geez! Get a life! LOL
“Ex-Congressman Accused Of Terror Ties
Ex Mich. Rep. Mark Deli Siljander Charged With Money Laundering, Conspiracy, Funding Terrorism”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/national/main3720821.shtml
“The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying – money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
CBS Radio’s Bob Fuss reports that Siljander served in the 1980’s as a Republican congressman from Michigan. He lost his seat partly due to controversy from what was seen as his religious extremism. He asked fundamentalist Christian supporters to “break by the back of Satan” by praying for his re-election.
Fuss reports he later became an author and lecturer on the topic of religious connections between Christianity and Islam and worked for reconciliation between the two religions, which is apparently how he got involved with islamic charities.”
Religious fundamentalists are not to be trusted to govern, period. America gets what it deserves if that’s the choice this nation makes. Oh and, by the way, despite what they would have you believe, it is a choice.
Find one word in the Constitution that makes the U.S.A. a Christian nation or shut up. It is very clear what the founders intended. They wrote it down in the — CONSTITUTION. You Christofacists just don’t like it and that’s the whole problem. Amend it if you can. The process is clearly written down by the founders.
By the way, would you let Presbyterians vote?
Let me put it this way, Ksgrm. Being a good, moral person you would never act on your baser instincts.
Being a bad, immoral person I would act on my baser instincts.
Food for thought.
Umm KsGrm I didnt say YOU lived in a parallel world… I said maybe there is such a thing as a parallel universe… Duhhh….
Like I said outlander.
Your side pushes, there’s a push back.
You should be THANKFUL for that. A great many American Christians are Evangelicals. This is a sect that did not exist prior to about the 1800’s.
If religion HAD been written into the Constitution, the Evangelical movement might have been illegal or at the least marginalized.
You are welcome.
Apophis
Here is a book you should read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841?ie=UTF8&tag=hannitycom0e-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0385511841
Liberalism INVENTED faschism!
Oh pity the poor Christians!
Cry me a river ksgrm.
Nathan’s and I THINK outlander’s candidate for President made a statement that is WAY outta line and telling. If they want to defend it and him they SHOULD be in for a rough go. We owe America no less.
Mr. Twisty
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
Find one word in the Constitution that makes the U.S.A. a Christian nation or shut up. It is very clear what the founders intended. They wrote it down in the — CONSTITUTION. You Christofacists just don’t like it and that’s the whole problem. Amend it if you can. The process is clearly written down by the founders.
By the way, would you let Presbyterians vote?
Mr Twisty you are operating under a delusion that someone on this blog wants to amend the constitution. Never happened. Take several deep breaths and your mind won’t be so fuzzy. I am a little concerned.
As for the Presbyterian question – I don’t have a problem with who votes, atheists, Christians, Presbyterians – come one come all. I’ll have your back on that one.
Liberal fascism is a fact, they are intolerant of anyone outside of their views, hate Jews and Christians and use hate speech along with threats to attempt to silence others.
why would i want to read a piece of crap piece pf propoganda like that?
just because someone writes it doesn’t make it true!
Grm — Mr.Twisty posted a quote from the Constitution… Your response to him was to ask him about his hostile attitude. Do you feel that the Constitution is a hostile document?
JR advocates violence. Interesting. Sad, but interesting.
Yeah I heard Hannity TOO there paulie.
That author is a flake.
Liberalism only saved your beloved capitalism for you. Without it America would have gone feudal.
Kinda like it is doing now. Capitalism doesn’t work when all the money is in the hands of the few.
Even if a little bean counter like you could squeek by counting their money for them.
Good Grief Econ — Thats nearly an O’Reilly-ism there… Mussolini was a Liberal?? Hitler was a Liberal?? Please, dont even try that line of illogical thought!!
Chas.
Posted January 16, 2008 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
Grm — Mr.Twisty posted a quote from the Constitution… Your response to him was to ask him about his hostile attitude. Do you feel that the Constitution is a hostile document?
Chas years ago my major was Abnormal Psychology. It comes it very handy on this blog. Don’t play word games with me. His hostile attitude was very apparent in the post. Sorry you are intuitive enough to see that.
Chaz I have said over and over again that my major is accounting and my minor is human resource management. With just a few hours I could have two majors but think I just let that one slide. Along with the business classes you take for HR you have to take several behavioral science classes. Hence the Abnormal Psychology classes.
You aren’t going to answer the question are you?
J R
Posted January 16, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
Yeah I heard Hannity TOO there paulie.
You know JR, for someone who posted just yesterday that you don’t listen to talk radio,
you sure listen to a lot of talk radio..
Well libs how do you like it now?
Raised minimum wage, and employers have stopped hiring.
Stopped us from drilling oil from vast reserves in Alaska, and now we are nearing 3 bucks a gallon again.
Endorsed the new CAFE standards, and now GM cars aren’t selling and Michigan has 7.5 unemployment rate.
Stopped coal fired plants and use of coal, our biggest natural resource – and the arabs are buying up all our banks.
Hope you choke on your principles. Because you will lead us to destruction you keep this up.
Check me out officer J R, check with your sources at the weblog when you pick up your welfare check. Goggle me. I’ve been here before.
Do I need a green card to post here?
And yes, you posted just the other day that you do not listen to talk radio – as you quoted Rushhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Back to the topic of this thread:
Gov. Huckleberry and his promise to amend our Constitution to mirror the “bible”.
Taliban and republic party members continue your paranoid rants!
Chas.
Posted January 16, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
Which question this time Grm??
Chas the same one I have posted twice tonight. If you can’t understand it the first two times why waste my time reposting it for the third time. You do the research this time.
Don’t want to answer the question I fear?
Hey libs, I got the night off. I busted but all day making lots of money so the government could take a third of it – to support you posting all day long.
I gotta get on the bread line with the rest of the liberal Americans.
Sorry Grm, I just checked up thread… I have already answered your questions, except for this last one… which I will now do… My answer to your last question is: I ALREADY ANSWERED IT BEFORE… YOU GO FIND IT!! LOL
RA keep this a closely guarded secret but I am socking my money away in my Haiti accounts like Uncle Teddy (Kennedy) does so I can get in line when Hillarycare starts. By that time I can qualify for the soup line too.
should read: There are 15 (now 16) middle schools in USD 259, not to mentioning the are middle schools in the surrounding communities.”
For the record, I’ve seen JR state on any number of occasions that he listens to right-wing hate radio to keep tabs on what they’re up to.
He’s a better man than I.
I can’t listen to Limpballs for more than five minutes before I want to yell “pull” at my radio and blast it with a shotgun out of the air . . .
Great escape and way to dodge the hard ones Chas. If trying to blame me for your lack of character works for you I have broad shoulders.
Nathan,
The questions were not fear mongering in any way. It shows the can of worms that can be opened by making statements such as Huckabee stated.
Your post, “I agree the comment was dumb for a public speech while running for President. It will be twisted beyond reason by those who don’t like Christians and those who don’t like republicans.”, kinda bothers me. I consider myself a Christian, but I also don’t believe my religious beliefs should be enjoined with politics. Nor do I believe someone running for any public office should make statements like he did.
If you want, and let, your personal religious beliefs decide who you vote for, that is your business. When your religious beliefs become part of the Presidential running platform, I will have enough of a problem with it that my vote will be influenced in a negative way towards that candidate.
Heck Ksgrm, there ain’t nothing sacred anymore. First the libs want to put back on the gains tax, then they want take the lid off my FICA withholdings, they tax anything that moves – and now their leading candidates are ready to HANDOUT MORE MONEY to the liberal fools on the breadline.
Is it any wonder Americans with money are moving it offshore?
Sorry troll-boy, you are the one with the history of making threats.
With that, I am out of here.
D
N
F
T
T
“Jesus was not a pacifist.”
Most of your post, Paul, was Jesus did NOT yada, yada, yada.
Copy and paste from the Bible where Jesus instructed his followers to be something other than a pacifist.
And Nathan, I still waiting for you to explain how you can follow one of St. Paul’s admonishments, but not all of them.
Hey KsGrm – how DARE you come on this Blog in your self-righteous sanctimony, and make stupid delusional accusations as to my identity! I have been a regular around here for quite some time now. I am all Female, I will have you know!
Same goes for you, Regular or whoever you are tonight. You can take your stupidity and stuff it somewhere the sun doesnt shine.
And Chas.? Thanks for trying to help out, but I dont need help from any kind of preacher – liberal or fundie. I can handle my own with these ridiculous small-minded individuals.
Now, listen, KsGrm – I am ME, get it? Just ME.
So stop with your stupidity. I do know who Chas. is. But havent seen him in a number of years. I dont share in his religious views. He is far too conservative for me. But I DO know him. And, for those of you who keep putting him down because of his faith, if you knew him, you wouldnt do that, even if you disagree with him!
And for another thing – I dont even live in your little town. I used to. But no more. Too small for my liking.
BTW, Chas., I dont think KsGrm is Nathan’s mother. She is too smart for him! Ha! Ha!
I know, I know. You didnt say she is. But you dont even need to let that thought cross your mind.
So, KsGrm, do we understand each other now? I am Female. I am young enough to be Chas.’s daughter. I dont live anywhere near Chas. or YOU. Now, if you and loud mouth Regular dont want to accept that, then dont. But that wont change who I AM.
And for the record – My parents were old hippies. They named us kids after things they saw when we were born. I was born close to a sugar beet farm in Colorado. My real name is Sugar. Last name is not relevant or necessary on a Blog.
One more thing – When I first met Chas. I was on the verge of suicide. He got me through a bad time. And he didnt even once try to shove religion at me. I still dont share his faith views. But he will never shove his religious views at anybody. Just straight help through a tough time period.
Hang in there Chas. It’s just a Blog, man.
Oh, and KSGRM, I am not CF2K and CF2K is not me.
CF is a much more accomplished individual than I am, but I am much better looking.
We are two different people.
BTW – I know CF2K’s real name and it isn’t the same as mine either.
Ksgrm
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm | Permalink
Ksgrm
Posted January 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
Chas are you in agreement with Pmom that Nathan and the others are attempting to change the world to reflect their beliefs?
Charles that was a good answer to someone elses question but it wasn’t mine. I reposted it just for you incase you had trouble reading it.
For the THIRD time Chas I posted the question. You made reference to the fact that Nathan and the others trying to change the world to fit their mold when in actuallity they were defending their position. I asked if you as a professing Christian thought that is what they were trying to do. I can see why you didn’t want to answer. Time to get in some quality reading before going to bed. JD Jakes – you should try it. He is explaining the book of Ephesians and from what I have seen today you need the clarification.
Gee, it’s about time to add something here.
Lets see if the children, that being;
Jr., CapnMaroon, Oedipus & Chas-the A$$, want to bite. Bet not, they get their intellectual fanny’s kicked every time.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.h tm l
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.” http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States”. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
Total cost is a whooping… $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
Bank of America has been offering credit cards to customers lacking Social Security numbers.
Status: True.
Snopes is provided for doubters:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp
Regular
Posted January 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm | Permalink
Yeah Apophis, you could be like Chas/Sugar making threats.
#
Chas.
Posted September 30, 2007 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
“Ahh yes…. JM Jimmy, I think… and last name starts with an M… and I do believe I could post that”
======================
Why dont you finish the rest of that quote, there, Regular/Kansas/et al…. I concluded that line by saying: BUT I WONT DO IT!!
Now what in the sam hill kind of threat is that??
How many Jimmie M’s are there in just the Wichita Phone Book?? Hmmmm?? Could that be some paranoia run rampant there Regular/James, etc.??? Looks like it!! :roll:
You must be having an episode James.
Ya managed to bust “Kittrel” in 3 posts.
It’s awful to your own side what you do here.
You used “workerbee” in your post.
I’ve only seen one other poster use that. That’s ksgrm, who most are convinced is for real.
Now that is in question.
Looks like someone left a tag open.
Here’s one from Steven Davis. Note there William, this is way before I used my name this January.
Neither did you, you pussy willow.
You are one extremely pathic dude. Go FYS. Thanks.
James McCl… lives at… let tell you more, if you are interested in this pussy willow…
Seriously though, who care about this POS?
Posted by: Steven Davis | November 28, 2007 at 11:51 PM
KsGrm — At 7:46 p.m. I DID in fact, answer your question!!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/amend-constitution-based-on-god/#comment-275606
There it is!! Now, will you stop with your stupid ad hominem attacks, and READ for a change! BTW, I wouldnt read Jakes if he walked across the street and handed me his book!! Just another talking head preacher boy hocking his wares!!
Good on the editors this thread.
Huckabee slipped and what he said should give everyone pause.
But thing is? Romney probably is much the same. And we know so little about his faith.
As I am CLEARLY biased, it is not for me to fairly explore that faith.
Perhaps the editors should do a thread on the Mormon faith. Such a thread would need links to credible and unbiased sites educational as to the church of latter day saints.
We have seen that the GOP fields candidates that wish to legislate faith into the basic tenets of government. Certainly we owe due diligence in understanding the faith of such candidates. Because as several have said here, their faith comes first and before they see themselves as Americans.
Well, back to the thread and Huckabee’s desire to have the Constitution of the United States amended to ban gay marriage………..
Chas, being a theologian, how can you reconcile St. Paul’s statements regarding homosexuality and women being silent in church?
Nathan won’t answer – he can’t – so perhaps you can enlighten us.
JR — I’m not sure a fair and unbiased thread could be run here about the Mormon faith… It has many trails, and many branches… The history alone is mind boggling!! I have taken four graduate level courses concerning Mormonism, and I am still somewhat confused as to what it all means. I dont know many Mormons who think they even understand all of its meanings… But, I do agree that it would be interesting… What would be even more interesting would be to have a refereed thread… live chat… with a professor of American religious history moderating…
It’s Judah/Christian rule that they’re after because that’s what they’ve been doing all along.
Step by Step.
Clark — James keeps claiming I am no theologian… However, we shall ignore his LIES once again… Paul’s urgings against homosexuality seem to be most likely directed at some form of deviant behavior among some of the early believers – especially at Corinth…
As for women keeping silence in Church — That one is fairly easy to understand and reconcile… Paul’s followers often times met in synagogues(by request), where women were not allowed to be seated on the floor with the Rabbi’s (or in Paul’s case, the preachers) – but rather had to sit either far to the back near the entrance, or else in balconys….
The women couldnt HEAR the conversations and teachings, and would interrupt the procedures, by hollering out questions…
Rather than disrupt their meetings, Paul instructed the women to keep silent during the gatherings, and ask their husbands what had happened when they got home…
In other words, Paul did NOT mean women could not have authority in the Church, as has been falsely interpreted by a number of different denominations… Paul DID mean that since they were borrowing the facilities, they would adhere to the uses required IN those facililties…
In other words, it isnt as anti-female as it might appear on the surface…
Hoope that helps a little!! Thanks Clark!!
And Regular TROLL??? It doesnt really matter what you say about my vocation… However, that doesnt mean you are RIGHT in your LIES!!
And it is a LIE for you to continue to openly rant and rave that I am not a theologian… Because, like it or not, IDIOT TROLL… I AM!!
Please note: Even Jesus called the lying hypocrites in his midst, Sons of Snakes!!
“If he is what he says he is and isn’t ashamed of it, then he would post his real name and qualifications here.”
As I have noted before, James, Chas is a Minister of a church – should he post EVEN just his name, that would subject him, his family and his CONGREGATION to possible harassment and disruption.
It is not just a matter of Chas himself, but his entire congregation.
Leave it be – if he choose to remain anonymous, then so be it – it is his choice – for the protection and integrity of his congregation.
Well I found out a little about Romney’s church by accident.
I was doing family research. That’s how I know my family was in Kansas before James’s.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
I found ancestors of mine with info attached that I couldn’t figure out. I had ancestors that lived married and died here in America in the 1600’s. But there was this stuff about “baptized 1932″ and “joined in union” 1932.
I was like what?
SO I went looking. The church of latter day saints is big into geneology and the ancestor info I found had lds links.
SO I found out that the Mormon church goes about baptizing the dead and sanctifying marriages that happened more than 200 years ago!
Now I don’t understand their reasoning in this. And I don’t wish to be prejudiced. But I found this…weird. Family members and other people I have told think so too.
It makes me wonder what other rituals they have and why so secretive about them.
Like I say, when they want to write religion into law, I think it only fair we UNDERSTAND the religion in question.
BTW, there were numerous sexually deviant pagan Temples in Corinth, that believed that you had to have a sexual union in order to become “one” with the deity of that Temple. The Temples had Temple Prostitutes (male and female) to provide for that need. The sexuality there was of a Sacramental nature, not well understood by the early Christians – most of whom were Jewish… It seems that some of the pagan converts didnt understand that if they became Christians, they were expected to give up their “sexual” visits to the pagan temples… Thus Paul asks: “Do you not know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit?”
Paul is making the analogy that NOW they are at ONE with the Holy Spirit, and there is now no need to be at ONE with any Temple Deity.
I tried closing the italics tag, let’s see if that works.
“Stopped us from drilling oil from vast reserves in Alaska, and now we are nearing 3 bucks a gallon again.”
Oh shut the hell up. I just paid $3.48 for a gallon of gas and you don’t hear me bitching. How long do you suppose the oil in Alaska would last us, a country filled with fat people who need to get in their SUV to get to the grocery store 1/4 mile away? We use about 20 million barrels of oil a day.
But how long would it take for the biodiversity there to be replaced after we destroy it? Probably forever. Actually, it would probably never be replaced.
You might be fine with raping the land until every last bit of it is exploited for profit and unnecessary luxury, but thank goodness the rest of us are not.
“How long do you suppose the oil in Alaska would last us”
Geologists estimate that there is only about six months worth of oil in the ANWR, at our current rate of consumption.
Hardly worth destroying a pristine wilderness for just six months worth of oil, don’t you think?
Maybe we should focus on increasing CAFE requirements and using bio fuels and hydrogen.
Well, I am out of work and out of time for today..
Good night; Good luck; and God bless,
Whatever you conceive God to be!
Blessings All!
Even to James!
I agree on bio fuels, and hydrogen… I would add wind generators to that list as well…
Clark — Where I am working now, there are dozens of fairly small wind farms. I am attempting to find out how much electricity those small wind farms are adding to the grid. I will let you know if/when I find out something.
Good night for now!! Early day tomorrow!!
Phillip must have known this thread would be a record. 517 – only in Kansas…
William,When you give the same type of preachy” speeches to CapnAmerica for days on end WSClark, then I’ll abide.
But you won’t, will you William?
CapnAmerica is a scumbag and you won’t admit it.
I wonder if the Corenthians ever wrote back.
Chas, sugar, jr and all others who think Romney’s religion needs to be investigated what are you doin about Obamas religion. since when do we have to investigate peoples religion if they run for public office.
Let’s see there, sock puppet. The right wing has accused Obama of being a Muslim, hiding in a Christian Church that they claim is racist. That was openly broadcast on the Las Vegas debate. It has been fully debunked.
Romney is part of a Church with a very shady past.
It has been suggested that some would like to see some discussion — not investigation — of Romney’s Church. Mormon religion is a very interesting study.
And your objection would be what?
I mean it is my post but not my nic.
The Juvenile seems obessed with Romneys Mormon faith.
As I have mentioned before, the Hindu religion actually believes in reincarnation.
So, instead of performing religious cermonies for the dead, as the Juvenile seems to object to, the Hindus keep open the possibility that the Juvenile is actually the reincarnation of someone else’s soul.
Dang, I wonder what the hell that poor soul did to come back cursed as the Juvenile?
By the way, we might have a State Rep who is a Hindu.
Republicans being the nice, tolerant people that we are, we never brought it up in the campaign.
Also, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Democrat Harry Reid, who the Juvenile has defended on this Blog, is also a Mormon.
Well Sir, I would like to tell you something of great importance. We actually have 27 amendments to our Constitution which actually changed the Constitution for the better. I’m sure you probably never heard of that.
One famous one, the 13th amendment was a change to the Constitution by a man named Abraham Lincoln. He was the 16th President of our great nation. He seamed to think that keeping black folks as slaves and treating them like animals was wrong. Well guess what, everyone thought he was out of his mind for wanting to free such creatures into our society, thus propelling us into the bloodiest battle on U.S. soil to date. The Civil War. (Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery and grants Congress power to enforce abolition.)
You may be scared of Mike Huckabee, but you ought to contemplate why that is. He thinks that the genocide of billions of little human babies is wrong. Who knows? But I can assure you sir, I don’t think he is wrong and neither to most of our Countrymen in South Carolina or the rest of this great nation.
Also, of the 55 men who formed our Constitution, 52 were active members of their Church. We take God a little more seriously down there.
I ask you please Sir, to hold your tongue if you do not have something more intelligent to say about my future 44th President of the United States of America!
Dan Campbell
Dan,
I am not christian, nor do I care to be. I ask you in all sincerity, how can I as an American citizen be represented by a president and a government that states that it is a christian government and will only represent the interests of christian churches? What assurances do I have that this government will not discriminate against me for my religion, or attempt to coerce or force my children and grandchildren to convert? Will we be denied access to government programs if we refuse to sign a paper renouncing our faith, or swear allegiance to Jesus Christ? Will I see my faith being denounced as evil and antichristian, and be relegated to second-class citizenship or worse? All these things have been done in other countries that espoused christianity. How will christians assure us that it won’t happen here?
I haven’t threatened violence, I have promised revolution. If this nation’s evangelicals hadn’t spent the past two and a half decades sitting in their megachurches telling the rest of us how “persecuted” they are maybe they would recognize the CONSTITUTIONAL right that allows them to do it; it comes from the First Amendment.
I’m tired of watching my nation fall apart with every vote you people cast driving down my rights and standard of living, driving up global hatred of America and Christianity. If you were truly people of personal responsibility you’d stop to examine you actions without presuming that no matter what you do it’s holy, moral and what God wants. Just the ARROGANCE of you constantly believing you know the mind of God … God …, or maybe it really is delusion and mental illnss, is sickening.
Increasing numbers of Americans are unwilling to put this nation’s future in your hands. If not getting your way makes you feel “persecuted”, send out the invitations to your self-fulfilling prophecy, because we law-abiding Americans who respect this nation and its Constitution are taking our country back.
How many babies has $4 a gallon milk saved, today, Christians?
Does being “Pro-Life” include parents being able to FEED their children in a nation where fundamentalist Christians’ choice of leaders is flushing this country’s economy down the toilet?
Econ101
Posted January 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
The Constitution ALREADY reflects Biblical Principles.
It should not be Ameded [Amended], it should simply be followed.
————————————
And what would those Biblical Principles be Econ101?
Shoving what liberals think is right okay but hey don’t make laws that reflect Christian values. If liberals think abortion is right, make that into law. If liberals think gay relationships are marriage then make a law for that. That don’t scare many americans. Hypocrites.
“Regular
Posted January 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
“If you don’t pay attention to me, I’m going to be very naughty. I will not be ignored until my demands are met!
———————-
“This is not my post.”
I’ll take it at it’s word here, but it is still its motivation (and its demands are met every time someone responds to it) For example:
“Right…chas/das/sugar
“Only an impostor would use words like “mark my angry female words.”
“A female would have said, “Mark my words.” They already know they’re female.
“But you knew that, didn’t use Chas/Das/Sugar.”
Intentional bad troll logic designed to get an outraged response. Therefore…
Re: Kansas
DNFTT
Well, Sol, I agree with your comment that Huckabee screwed up big time. It may play well with some voters in South Carolina but it won’t play out well in the general election, and in a number of other state primaries.
Only if this makes the MSM. I heard it was on CNN yesterday in a not very good light. I think CNN caters mostly to the left. I wonder if Fox picked up on it. Fox seems to be backing Romney. This could be a double edged story for them.
Too many on the right rely on Hanity and O’Riely (sp?) to make up their minds for them. If fox does not let this story breath, will enough on the right see exactly what the Huckster is aiming for?
Wow paulthecon is taking the last election really hard.
What Raj Goyle and his faith have to do with Presidential candidates expressing a desire to write their faith into the Constitution? I don’t know. Clearly pauls lingering bitterness lies just below the surface.
Hmm What else is just below the surface?
We have Presidential candidates on the right wanting to legislate faith. Willard Romney is of a little understood faith. All I suggested was an unbiased exploration of that faith. Why does this make paul AND Romney defensive?
Not a word, not even a peep about this on right wing radio yesterday. Not defensive or offensive.
Apparently the right has decided to let this destroy Huckabee or not on its own.
Heh If I were them, I’d be afraid to touch it too.
Wow, it seems this morning, that the thread is back to being thoughtful. That junk yesterday got old. But it looks like it bled through on another thread this morning.
For those that care:
I’m not paying attention to what side you’re on, what your real identity is and if you’re crazy or not. Hell, I’ve been called a crazy tin-foil hat wearer on this thing and I laugh about it. I just want to see a discussion not a cussin’.
OMG, this is just TOO funny. It will certainly offend many here, with rude language and calling a spade a bloody shovel. The faint of heart should not click.
But if you can stand the rude humor, I think this fits PERFECTLY on this thread. heheheheh.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
“ksfarmgrrl” –
Thanks for the link!
Nice to know ol’ Rude Pundit is still in fine form.
“Only if this makes the MSM. I heard it was on CNN yesterday in a not very good light. I think CNN caters mostly to the left. I wonder if Fox picked up on it. Fox seems to be backing Romney. This could be a double edged story for them.”
Good observation. And this double edged sword extends to Republican candidates as well. Huckabee’s comments are damaging, but there are enough Republicans who are sympathetic with his comments that if another Republican candidate tried to take advantage of them it could backfire.
FYI, I don’t think CNN is particularly liberal. They are commercial. With the right sewed up by Faux, they are not right, but not right does not equal liberal.
“Too many on the right rely on Hannity and O’Reilly to make up their minds for them. If fox does not let this story breath, will enough on the right see exactly what the Huckster is aiming for?”
The interesting thing is that much of the modern “right” movement was a hybrid creation of an alliance saught after by Richard Viguarie and Howard Phillips, a couple of far right individuals known in some circles as “paleocons” (also in that circle is the odious Phyllis Schlafley mentioned earlier). They were brilliant in that they took certain positions opposed by one group of conservatives, combined them with positions opposed by another group of conservatives, and combined them yet again with positions opposed by yet another group of conservatives. The owners of these positions became straw man liberals, and the conservative alliance became united against these straw man liberals. I was very interested to hear Richard Viguarie admit more than 20 years later that the liberal that conservatives were so railing against was largely a mythological construct (I believe it was on the Daily Show). It is also ironic that after helping to create the most successful coalition in modern politics, Howard Phillips decided that it STILL wasn’t conservative enough and went off to form his own party. But when you create an alliance around what you are against, you also create a presumption of a set of issues around which you are FOR. Don’t get me wrong, there are knee jerk liberals, and there are people who now oppose anything a “conservative” might be for, but they are no where near as common, in my very strong opinion, as knee jerk conservatives. And the emergence of knee jerk liberals (really, anti-conservatives) are a natural consequence of creating an alliance against strawman liberals because, the reality is, most people are liberal on one issue or another.
The conservative coalition meanwhile, although still for my money the most powerful in American politics, is unraveling. People who are financial conservatives first are seeing the Christian Right as a potential albatross in national politics whose potential drag on the Republican party is directly proportional to their visibility. Christian conservatives, on the other hand, are starting to see that while their support is desired by other conservatives, these other conservatives would like for them to keep relatively quiet about what they really want to achieve, because they do have a tendancy to turn people off when they feel powerful (Kansas politics is a perfect example of this phenomenon). Also, although Christian Conservatives tend to be suspicious of social spending, there is an increasing number of them who do not necessarily swallow the conservative coaliton line about global warming/environmental extremism or the primacy of free enterprise.
Huckabee’s comments regardng the constitution are exactly the sort of comments that many, probably most, Republicans would rather the CR would keep to itself.
It’s ashame, I really like Huckabee’s tax program. As a Republican, it might be OK to vote for him on the premise that none of his idiot theorcratical issues would have a chance. But getting that Supreme Court slot filled by him would be very dangerous. I can’t see him being a liar like Bush though.
Now I have to work out in my mind if his tax program is beneficial enough to outweight his other policies, and if Hillary and Obamma’s liberal socialist state will be worse than all the above. Of course, that is assuming they are all that bad. It’s tough to pick through all the name calling and hype nowdays!
Maybe in our lifetime we will see the demise of the GOP and a couple of splinter parties from the original. I think the two party system has languished and decremented our political system long enough. Too many years have been spent deciding between the lesser of two evils.
If the RR can be separated from the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Cons from the true conservatives, maybe we can get down to a handful of candidates to decide from in November as opposed to whom we dislike the least between two choices.
Semper,
I have a few issues with Huckster’s tax platform. I think it will impact the lower half of our economy far greater than the upper. Let’s say you want to buy a house. A $200,000 house with the tax added becomes a $260,000 to $280,000 house. Now if you are elite and this is your summer cabin in the mountains, it really wouldn’t matter. If this is going to be your domicile, it has a huge impact.
Bring that down to school clothes. That $50 pair of jeans for your daughter now cost $65 to $70. That only accounts for the federal sales tax. Most states have at least a state sales tax included. This may not seem like a huge difference. If it doesn’t, count yourself lucky.
Again, this is all in my opinion, but I think this sales tax would further damage a mortally wounded economy.
What are your thoughts?
“ksagnostic” –
Good, thoughtful post.
As a lifelong Liberal (”knee-jerk?” well, maybe sometimes…except for the “knee” part :-)) I’ve heard the rhetoric that passes as “conservative” for decades. I used to listen to Limbaugh on the hope that maybe once, just once, he might say something that surprised me; like maybe, how the occupation of Iraq is precisely the kind of “nation-building” George WMD Bush railed against when he was running in 2000; or, that it’s a “family value” that should have decided Terri Schaivo’s husband’s decision, not an act of Congress. Never happened, of course. Because the Republic Party has been juggling all three anti-liberal factions and compartmentalized their professed “principles” for sheer political gain.
I’ve listened all my life to conservative principles and they’ve softened my objections to them along the way.
Yes, I believe the world requires a strong military force, and I respect and admire the people who contribute to America’s strength. But when the United States spends more on military than all other nations in the world *combined!* perhaps we’re overdoing it.
I agree that capitalism, in theory, is the most powerful economic engine ever devised. But I’ve seen how unmitigated laizzes-faire capitalism capitulates under the forces of greed and exploitation.
I even agree to a degree that belief in a higher power can contribute to many of the conundrums that face the human experience. But I’ve heard alll my life proslytizers stress a *personal* relationship with whatever “god” they’re promoting. Sounds fine to me. Get as personal in your relationship with whatever “god” cooks for you; just don’t try to impose your *personal* relationship on the rest of us.
But seeing the theo-political faction of the Republic Party coalition strut that the Constitution of the United States of America should somehow be changed to embrace a certain religion’s dogma, I relate to Gandhi, who said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Doug: you wrote “98% of Congress is Christian so he can get that crap through…”
So this MUST mean that the other 2% is wrong!
Squash the 2%.
Heh Monkey Hawk, reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker.
“Jesus, save me from your followers”
Philip Brownlee asked a rhetorical question “how exactly are we changing the standards of an unchangeable God?”.
Let us look at some of the interesting laws that wacko liberals come up with but are not given prominence because it shows liberals in bad light:
1. Laws allowing people of one gender to use the restrooms of the opposite gender because they feel that way. Common sense … what’s that? Only ideology here.
2. Closing down orphanages because they do not give children to homosexual couples. Forcing others to follow what liberals believe … that’s what being tolerant is all about.
3. Teaching anti-christian ethics in public schools without the option of opting out. One way road, no two way streets here.
4. Needle exchange programs funded by the government. Have a bad addiction? You don’t need rehab, you need more free needles.
These are only a few of their kooky ideas, which the liberal talibans have made laws for.
The constitution is ALREADY based on god. Liberals have been attempting to tear that apart for decades (Hence, the current mess our society is in…). As for H-man, unfortunately he IS a moron, but for other reasons…
Eventually, the abortion issue will be returned to the states.
Either through the courts overturning Roe and Doe, or through Congress limiting, by simple resolution, the jurisdiction of the Courts.
The President plays absolutely no role in the Constitutional Amendment process, except, perhaps, as cheerleader.
As a conservative, I do not think a Constitutional Amendment is the proper way to resolve this issue.
Politically, the hard liners in the prolife movement wont allow the Constitutional Amendment to be drafted in such a way that a majority would support it. If you include the “rape, incest, life of the mother” exceptions, you can get majority public support, but you LOOSE the support of the prolife/anti-abortion hard liners. (No exceptions, no compromise, they say. NO PROGRESS, then, I say.)
This is exactly the type of difficult, politically explosive issue the framers were worried about, when they devised our system.
Huckabee was pandering because it is hard to be honest with some prolife folks about the political realities.
The public would be ok with huge restrictions on abortion.
The public would not be ok with an outright ban.
“The public would be ok with huge restrictions on abortion.”
That is bullcrap, Rossell. The polls have shown time and time again that the American public supports a woman’s right to choose by a large majority. It is only when it comes to late-term abortions does the percentages slant towards the anti-choice people.
The American public will never vote to ban abortion for just cases of rape or incest.
Your analysis is just plain wrong.
You RR conservatives need to just leave this issue alone.
“The American public will never vote to ban abortion for just cases of rape or incest.”
Rephrase that a bit………..
The American public will never vote to allow abortion for only cases of rape or incest.
WS Clark,
Where are you getting your info?
This is a bit old, but from 2004 from Zogby:
“a total of 56 percent agreed with one of the following pro-life views: abortion should never be legal (18 percent), legal only when the life of the mother is in danger (15 percent) or legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest (23 percent).”
” Only 42 percent of those surveyed agreed with one of the following statements supporting abortion: abortion should be legal for any reason in the first 3 months (25 percent), legal for any reason during the first 6 months (4 percent) or legal for any reason at any time during the woman’s pregnancy (13 percent).”
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087
The country is pretty evenly split on the issue for as long as I can remember.
If you anti-choice, anti-woman folks had there way, Nathan, abortion would NEVER be legal except in the case of rape, incest or if the baby’s daddy had a lot of money.
Actually, Nathan, a majority of American – 60+ percent – support a woman’s right to choose in the first trimester.
You could not pass a bill even in Kansas to ban abortion in the first trimester.
But you anti-choice folks would have a woman carry a child to term EVEN if she was raped.
That’s just how you folks are.
WS Clark,
Do you have some link to back up your 60% number?
In most of these debates, I try to be reasonable.
Will you?
Lets start with the terms. I am Pro-Life, not anti-choice.
Are you ever going to need an abortion Nathan?
Is anyone you know going to?
JR,
Obviously, I am not ever going to need an abortion.
I don’t know what you mean by “need” an abortion, but everyone I know has seemed to be pretty happy with being pregnant and fully plan on having the child.
No Nathan you are not pro life.
You and your party oppose health care for the poor. You routinely make light and fun of those who have less than you.
What you are Nathan is pro Nathan and you and yours. You’ve nothing but contempt blame and derision for anyone else.
“In most of these debates, I try to be reasonable.”
That is funny, Nathan……………
“I am Pro-Life, not anti-choice.”
Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose?
No.
Then, by definition, you are anti-choice.
It’s funny how the same people that are anti-choice are also anti-SCHIP.
Just have that baby, bitch, but don’t ask for any help after it is born.
Republican Party Platform – the last 30 years.
“but everyone I know has seemed to be pretty happy with being pregnant and fully plan on having the child.”
No kidding. You anti-choice folks act like women are just BEGGING to get pregnant so that they can run out and have an abortion.
The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of women DO want to carry their babies to term.
The overwhelming majority of women want to carry their babies to term.
A very insignificant number, for whatever reason, do not want to carry their babies to term and they should have that choice.
“everyone I know has seemed to be pretty happy with being pregnant and fully plan on having the child”
Well Nathan, you live in a different world than me. I was “pro life” once. Then I had a friend whose boyfriend was an abuser and rapist. I paid for her abortion.
You pontificate on high Nathan. Most likely you will never suffer for anything or from anyone.
You live in a bubble.
The real world is a bit different.
Now you went off and did your admittedly difficult Marine training. And you did two tours in bush’s disastrous adventure.
But what acquaintence have you with real life?
WS Clark,
Fine, you want to be petty about this then?
You are Pro-Murder then.
Do you believe in the life of the unobrn? No? Then you must be Pro-Murder then.
Sigh….
Oh I know, lets be even more silly!
Do you believe in school choice Clark? How about Choice to own assualt rifles?
I guess you are not really Pro-Choice either because if you don’t believe in choice, by goodness you can’t call yourself Pro-Choice!
The basic difference is this:
Either you believe the unborn child to be a life worthy of saving or you don’t.
Plain and simple.
If you don’t believe the unobrn child to be a life worthy of saving then who cares about the reasoning, kill it!
If you do believe that the unborn child is a life worthy of saving then it should be protected and the mere conveinence of the mother shouldn’t matter.
You have health care Nathan. Me and my family? No.
We are born.
Now you have posted elsewhere as to how you and your family are better than me and mine. And you have been very insulting and judgemental in same.
You are not pro life Nathan. You are “pro life”.
You are a hypocrite.
“You are Pro-Murder then.”
Did I say that a child could be aborted after birth, Nathan? Did I say that a woman should be able to arbitrarily abort a child right up until the moment of birth?
No.
And if you want a freakin’ assault rifle – go buy a god damned assault rifle – as I have stated many times before – go for it – I don’t give a good God damn.
Christ, I could care less if you bought a freakin’ Bradley Tank used at your local gun dealer.
I don’t give a damn if you buy a freakin’ ICBM.
Go for it – if it makes you feel like more of a man – then by all means – do it.
Jesus, you are truly a childish man.
JR,
You are the one who constantly feels the need to mischaracterize my family and I and talk about my family’s “welath”
It is not me who brings up that crap.
I have never said I am better than you, but you sure seem to think I am and have no problem constantly acting like it.
The only one of us who constantly tries to be insulting is you.
You have completely mastered playing the victim. If you spent that much time trying to get yourself Health care you would probably have it.
Quit feeling sorry for yourself and do something.
“Nathan” –
In the last week my niece experienced a tubal pregnancy.
She’s unmarried and has used an IUD for birth control for quite a while. When she found out she was pregnant, she wrote to me, “So I’m the .o2%!”
She seriously considered her choices until she discovered the ectopic pregnancy would kill her.
Now, most of the so-called “pro-life” people, who accept abortion when it threatens the life of the mother, would have no problem with the surgical procedure which saved my niece’s life. But there are those hard-core “life begins at conception” folks who, as you seem to advocate, consider the rights and options of the person with a womb and the fertilized egg within her as equal parties in the equation.
It wasn’t a *baby* that got stuck in my niece’s fallopian tube, it was a cluster of developing cells that simply couldn’t make it into the uterus and develop *into* a baby.
So maybe the “life begins at conception” people are mistaken, huh?
And, by the way, just exactly how may angels can dance on the head of a pin? Show your work.
For the purposes of civil law — from the date you’re eligible to get a learner’s permit to the date you can start collecting Social Security — *life* begins when you’re born. Yeah, there are some abiguities to that approach, but you don’t have to wait to get a driver’s license ’til you’re 16 years and a month old, simply because you were a premature birth. Civil law’s clock starts when you’re out of the womb and breathing on your own.
Go hold your signs on the sidewalk and call me a “baby-killer” to your heart’s content. But you’re wrong when real-world circumstances happen to intrude on your religious idealism.
MonkeyHawk,
Do you see anywhere in this thread where I have talked about religion, my faith, or how either of those is why I hold the opinion I do on Abortion?
I don’t recall using them anywhere in the discussion.
Yet, for some reason you feel compelled to respond to me as if I did.
Why?
I am not sure what your personal story was meant to prove either.
So, I take it from your post, that you believe that the unborn child is not a life worthy of protecting at any point untill “birth?”
Econ 101
Don’t be afraid of Huckaee’s populism. As the economy deteriorates over the next 2 -3 months, I think that Huckabee’s populist message will resonate with the masses and he could easily win the nomination & presidency. Americans are sick of the elitist media & scholars, corrupt politicians, greedy lawyers & doctors, amoral corporations and hypocritical religious clergy. I support a constitutional amendment to allow school districts to authorize children & teenagers to pray a non-denominational prayer to a loving & concerned God and to write the 10 Commandments in 12″ letters on the walls of every courtroom in America. The Wichita judges and attorneys would need to pay close attention to the rules against adultery, stealing, lying, murder.
Bill McKean kiakahahaha@yahoo.com 293-6079
“Nathan” –
Your sophistry wears thin. You have nothing in reposne so you try to redraw the parameters of the discussion in a desperate effort to proclaim your superiority.
You know damend well that the “life begins at conception” represents an attitude of people who, as you, oppose abortion on religious bases.
When reality pokes your nose into the shit you’ve proclaimed, you claim ignorance. And, given so many of your posts to this forum, most people accept you’re ignorant. Not stupid, mind you (although I wouldn’t rule that out, but ignore-ant. You choose to ignore the concepts that don’t fit into your prejudices.
Is my niece, who lost three pints of blood on the operating table because of a tubal pregnancy, a “Baby Killer?”
You plead ignorance to avoid the real-world consequences of your anti-abortion fetish. You retreat to “Baby Killer!” mode because that’s a ploy that’s worked for you, and requires no thoughtful approach to the issue of reproductive rights.
Golly, you’re such a victim sometimes, “Nathan.”
Go ahead. Live your life, worship your “god,” make your choices and do what you want to do. But when you start asserting that *your* approach to life is the only “correct” approach to life, you’re moving outside the rational limits to your rights in a non-sectarian democratic republic.
We all know that your embrace of whatever it is you think is “christian” dominates your life. Fine. But your embrace of whatever it is you think is “christian” has no place in public policy and/or civil law. You have to come up with something better. Your belief in Jesus simply isn’t a card you can play in this game.
You want to change the game. Okay. Good luck with that. But the Constitution of the United States of America is the rule book and it doesn’t allow you to play those cards.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, Michael Huckabee declared he wanted to change the Constitution into something that is his interpretation of “God.”
I suspect “God” is bigger than Mike Huckabee’s view of Him. “God” might even know more than you do, “Nathan.” Perhaps you should listen more and talk less. Every time you talk, you diminish “God” and promote the beliefs of “Nathan.”
Don’t confuse the two.
For those of us of a religious bent, the basic tenent of God plan is choice. Every one gets to choose. There was another plan proposed however in which no one gets to choose, and everyone would return. This was rejected and the proponents who sought to use force to change that decision where cast out “for rebellion.”
So which plan does the Reverend Huckabee follow? Does this make him Anti-Christ, since he is in direct opposition to Gods Plan? Or does it simply point out how easily man is deceived into frustrating the plan of salvation? Who is pulling his strings, really? I guess “by their fruits shall ye know them,” is just as applicable today as it every was.
Just a thought, kind of makes one say hmmmmm,
Thank you very much Huck. Zeus should be put into the constition.
Not! Huckabee is un-American.
The constitution was written to open the door to all faith and non-faith, as it should be.
Shared by a Deist.
Okay, what gives with the WE folks yanking posts? A large handful of mine from last night are gone. None of them contained anything overtly flaming, yet they have been deleted.
If they want to delete the posts, do it when I make them – not the next morning.
Damn.
test
word green in green, red in red; insert special characters like © or ™ or even ®.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and left the hen house minus the eggs of green, but left the red eggs.
Underline
Troll-boy…………..The White Zone is for loading and unloading only……………
WS,
Editing is a genetic brain disease that forces a writer to delete other people’s words rather than create his own. The only known cure for editing is for the editor to have his novel accepted for publication, a difficult and dangerous procedure performed only by other editors. Please try to be more sensitive to this horrible condition.
SWClark: I think we need to hear more about Paul’s two admonishments. Chas’ explanation sounds a little bit of a stretch to me (anti-woman as it is, nonetheless).
And we DEFINITELY still need to hear from NATHAN on this subject. Funny how his excuse was that he wasn’t going to argue with you, but then he proceeds to argue with you on other things (the ones he can fake an answer for). NATHAN, you will not get away with not answering this question that has been asked of you about ten times now. Why listen to Paul on homosexuality but not women?
WSClark*
John K,
I went on to answer the question in another thread.
I have answered this question several times over the past few years each time it has been asked.
I am not trying to get away from anything.
Here is a good article on it for you to read if you are so inclined:
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm
John K. — You dont have to take MY word for Paul’s reasoning on women being silent… Look it up in Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, in First Corinthians…. MANY other commentaries also agree that Paul is just attempting to go with the “House Rules” — There are many other references to Paul’s treatment of women that are not of such a seemingly demeaning attitude… Many of the early “hosts” for the Church were women — especially widows…
Nathan: Can you tell me the date and time of your response? I scanned this whole thread last night and only came across your refusals to answer because WS “wasn’t being reasonable.” As for your link and for Chas’ response, seems like more typical Christian modus operandi…find the set of facts that makes the Bible look correct and go with it. It’s really convenient that every Old Testament prohibition in Leviticus is “ceremonial” and no longer applies if it seems ridiculous today, but homosexuality is still wrong. Paul’s forbidding of women to teach “presumably addressed the specific situation in this community” (according to Nathan’s link). Of course, it’s not possible that the Bible forbids women to teach across the board because that would make it lose its credibility in today’s society. So, these biblical teachings are interpreted away, in a very labored way, to try to square the Bible with common sense. Of course, it’s not even REMOTELY possible that the Bible is just wrong on women’s equality, and thus possibly wrong on other things. You guys are no better than the “activist judges” who read constitutions to fit their preconceived notion of what is right. If you want judges to strictly construe the Constitution, then why don’t you start strictly construing the Bible. Paul said women should not hold authority over men. No explanation needed– it’s in the text of the New Testament. When God sends a modern day Moses down to “amend” the Bible, we’ll talk. Until then, stop trying to sell this liberal interpretation of the Bible.
John K,
I find that you were rather dishonest in your question then.
I provided you with a well written commentary on Paul and his many references to women in the Church. Then you don’t even comment on anything the article said.
You simply rail on with the typical anti-Christian generalities.
I didn’t say I responded in this thread either. I said that I had responded to Clark in “another thread.” So that is probably why you didn’t see it.
Either way, I responded to your question and posted a good article on the subject.
If you are truly interested in discussing this, then why not respond to the points in the article or bring some of your own instead of the typical generalities used by those who don’t understand Biblical context?
Seems like you just wanted to waste time and beat your chest instead of seek any kind of real discussion.
Nathan,
My apologies for misunderstanding about where you responded. I scanned the article you provided, and like I said, I see more of the same stuff I’ve seen for years. I’ve gone to church almost weekly since I was born– 24 years. I bought into it all at one time, and I’m familiar with a lot of the “context.” It is still very clear to me that people read some things in context and some out of context depending on the conclusion they want to reach. I don’t see anyone going past “thou shalt not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.” No talk about context there. I can give you links to plenty of sites that try to explain that Paul was talking about non-committed gay relationships and that the prohibition didn’t include the type of gay relationships that are prevalent today. But you won’t be interested in that sort of context because your conclusion is set. I happen to believe the Bible means exactly what it says with regard to homosexuality and with respect to women. I disagree with it vehemently, but I believe it means what it says. You want to read some things in context and some out of context, and again, it’s typical. I’m not going to get into it anymore; I’ve done that on many online forums like this, and I’m tired of it because it doesn’t get anything done and just distracts me from other things I have to get done. I’ll let you have the last word.