| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"buckeye" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2007 12:26:09 PM |
| Object: |
: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
When Tony Blair was prime minister of Great Britain, a reporter tried to
interview him about his religious faith. Absolutely not, Blair's press
secretary told the reporter. "We don't do God."
Most British politicians, indeed most European politicians, "don't do God."
They believe that religion is an intensely private matter and to discuss it
publicly is unseemly.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an Englishman writing in The New York Times, put it
succinctly: "In striking contrast to America, religion plays no part in
British political life."
What irony! In Britain, where the Anglican Church is the official religion
"by law established," British politicians do not rattle on about their
religion. But in America, where the U.S. Constitution forbids the
establishment of religion and guarantees the separation of church and
state, our politicians spout off about their religious faith with ease and
frequency. Especially when they're pandering for votes.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney "did God" the other day to repair
political damage he's suffering in Iowa. Polls show that Christian
conservatives find Romney's Mormon religion baffling and even frightening.
Many Christian conservatives are fleeing his ship for Mike Huckabee. The
former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister presumably makes Iowa
Republicans feel more comfortable. They're highly familiar with Huckabee's
Baptist denomination, and his speeches often sound like sermons.
But Mormons? With only 2 million members and their beliefs a mystery to
most Americans, Mormonism is suspect. Many Americans associate Mormons with
polygamy, even though it was outlawed more than a century ago. Others worry
that the Mormon faith isn't really a bona fide Christian religion.
So Romney tried to set the record straight with a speech in which he asked
for religious tolerance. He also stressed that, if elected, he would uphold
the separation of church and state.
The pity is that Romney felt compelled to make the speech in the first
place. If separation of church and state means what it says, politicians
should not have to pass religious testing. Instead, presidential fitness
should be determined by a candidate's qualifications, governmental
experience and platform.
For surely we've learned by now that a president's religious preference has
scant effect on success in the Oval Office. Our two "born again" presidents
-- George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter -- have not been dazzling chief
executives.
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importance
of keeping religion in its rightful place. Early settlers had fled Europe
to escape religious persecution, and the framers of the Constitution
resolved to keep church and state separate.
Yet religious testing, sorry to say, has remained a fixture in American
history. Here in North Carolina, Jews were not allowed to run for public
office until 1868. Catholics were also victims of exclusionary politics
across the nation.
When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he felt compelled to quiet
fears about his Catholic faith in a speech to Southern Baptists in Texas.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute," he stressed.
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith. In Iowa, where the presidential caucus will be
held next month, a Newsweek poll found that 17 percent of likely Republican
caucus participants said a candidate's religion was "very important" in
determining their vote. Another 30 percent said it was "somewhat
important." Thus 47 percent say religion will influence their vote.
A few nights ago, CNN's Lou Dobbs asked listeners whether a candidate's
religion should be a factor in elections. The e-mail response was, of
course, unscientific. Yet 84 percent said religion should not be an issue
at the polls. Good for them. If only other Americans believed in separation
of church and state, too.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 01:10:08 PM |
|
|
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom imposes
religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it is okay.
When government uses religion as the benchmark, then that is not okay.
Anything else misses the poiint ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 03:24:35 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom imposes
religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it is
okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark, then that is not
okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the US is
filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes. Besides their religious piety,
is there anything that gives them the qualifications to run the country?
They're running for a position to lead the nation, not to be the
Christian pope of the US.
We will be a better nation when we rid the politicians of religious
sanctimony.
Anything else misses the poiint ...
I could give a rat's ***** what religion the politician believes in. Can
he do a good job leading the nation? should be the only point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 05:30:43 PM |
|
|
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom imposes
religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it is
okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark, then that is not
okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the US is
filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict to remove
religion ...
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
16 Dec 2007 07:39:11 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness,
then it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark, then
that is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the US
is filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict to
remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a large
portion of Americans are.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes? That's
news to this planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
16 Dec 2007 02:13:36 PM |
|
|
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13maajusdfl2d52@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then
it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark, then that
is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the US is
filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict to
remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a large
portion of Americans are.
You could do that, but you previously suggested taking voting rights away
based on a religious.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes? That's
news to this planet.
All Republicans are not, some religious fanatics are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 09:44:47 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13maajusdfl2d52@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness,
then it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark,
then that is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current
president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the
US is filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict to
remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a
large portion of Americans are.
You could do that, but you previously suggested taking voting rights
away based on a religious.
Why would I do that? I wish all Americans would vote. I dislike the
fact that candidates run on religion. It's as if they are running for
religious office when they are running for the head man for my country.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes?
That's news to this planet.
All Republicans are not, some religious fanatics are.
The Republican party is the "Party of god!". The religious fanatics
make up a good part of the Republican party. BTW, when you say
"religious fanatics" don't forget the word "Christian". As in
"Christian religious fanatics". The in-your-face kind. The poor,
tormented, persecuted, soldiers in the war on Christmas Christians. The
kind one hopes they rapture immediately and leave the rest of us sinners
alone.
Now you might be one of those folks that vote for a person based on his
church history. But you are simply one of the morons I discussed earlier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 11:53:40 AM |
|
|
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13md6bf446rnj6a@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13maajusdfl2d52@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness,
then it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark, then
that is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current
president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the US
is filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict to
remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a large
portion of Americans are.
You could do that, but you previously suggested taking voting rights away
based on a religious.
Why would I do that? I wish all Americans would vote. I dislike the fact
that candidates run on religion. It's as if they are running for
religious office when they are running for the head man for my country.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes? That's
news to this planet.
All Republicans are not, some religious fanatics are.
The Republican party is the "Party of god!". The religious fanatics make
up a good part of the Republican party. BTW, when you say "religious
fanatics" don't forget the word "Christian". As in "Christian religious
fanatics". The in-your-face kind. The poor, tormented, persecuted,
soldiers in the war on Christmas Christians. The kind one hopes they
rapture immediately and leave the rest of us sinners alone.
Now you might be one of those folks that vote for a person based on his
church history. But you are simply one of the morons I discussed earlier.
Or, I might not be.
I might be one of those that don't give a rat's ***** about your sinful
nature, but want it to remain in your own home and stay the hell out of
mine. You can burn in Hell if you want, but please do not drag me down with
you. That's selfish, I know. But you obviously do not care, why should I?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
18 Dec 2007 12:07:36 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13md6bf446rnj6a@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13maajusdfl2d52@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness,
then it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark,
then that is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current
president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the
US is filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict
to remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a
large portion of Americans are.
You could do that, but you previously suggested taking voting rights
away based on a religious.
Why would I do that? I wish all Americans would vote. I dislike the
fact that candidates run on religion. It's as if they are running for
religious office when they are running for the head man for my country.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes?
That's news to this planet.
All Republicans are not, some religious fanatics are.
The Republican party is the "Party of god!". The religious fanatics
make up a good part of the Republican party. BTW, when you say
"religious fanatics" don't forget the word "Christian". As in
"Christian religious fanatics". The in-your-face kind. The poor,
tormented, persecuted, soldiers in the war on Christmas Christians.
The kind one hopes they rapture immediately and leave the rest of us
sinners alone.
Now you might be one of those folks that vote for a person based on
his church history. But you are simply one of the morons I discussed
earlier.
Or, I might not be.
I might be one of those that don't give a rat's ***** about your sinful
nature, but want it to remain in your own home and stay the hell out of
mine. You can burn in Hell if you want, but please do not drag me down
with you. That's selfish, I know. But you obviously do not care, why
should I?
You know what hell is? I'll give you an example. Being stuck in heaven
for eternity with you and your ilk. You guys wouldn't have a problem
spoiling a wet dream, making heaven misearble wouldn't be a large feat
for your kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
18 Dec 2007 10:18:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:07:36 -0800, Salad <oil@vinegar.com> wrote:
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13md6bf446rnj6a@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13maajusdfl2d52@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:13m8hgk49at3cbf@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"buckeye" <buckeyeelo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q178m393qml0q2486paks77bg3985p5fjs@4ax.com...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
Whether it should be is not important. What is important is whom
imposes religion. When voters use religion as a guage of fitness,
then it is okay. When government uses religion as the benchmark,
then that is not okay.
That's why we ended up with that dumb ***** that's our current
president.
When voters use religion as a guage of fitness, then it proves the
US is filled with dull-witted moronic voters.
But you can't do anything about that, except use governemnt edict
to remove religion ...
I can't do a thing. I can go to sleep disturbed at how ignorant a
large portion of Americans are.
You could do that, but you previously suggested taking voting rights
away based on a religious.
Why would I do that? I wish all Americans would vote. I dislike the
fact that candidates run on religion. It's as if they are running for
religious office when they are running for the head man for my country.
The Republicans ranks are full of the in-your-face Christian
my-god-is-better-than-your-god assholes.
*****.
You're saying Republicans aren't a bunch of perverted Holy Joes?
That's news to this planet.
All Republicans are not, some religious fanatics are.
The Republican party is the "Party of god!". The religious fanatics
make up a good part of the Republican party. BTW, when you say
"religious fanatics" don't forget the word "Christian". As in
"Christian religious fanatics". The in-your-face kind. The poor,
tormented, persecuted, soldiers in the war on Christmas Christians.
The kind one hopes they rapture immediately and leave the rest of us
sinners alone.
Now you might be one of those folks that vote for a person based on
his church history. But you are simply one of the morons I discussed
earlier.
Or, I might not be.
I might be one of those that don't give a rat's ***** about your sinful
nature, but want it to remain in your own home and stay the hell out of
mine. You can burn in Hell if you want, but please do not drag me down
with you. That's selfish, I know. But you obviously do not care, why
should I?
You know what hell is? I'll give you an example. Being stuck in heaven
for eternity with you and your ilk. You guys wouldn't have a problem
spoiling a wet dream, making heaven misearble wouldn't be a large feat
for your kind.
Hell is going to heaven for your 69 or whatever virgins and then discovering
why they have virgins in heaven too . :-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
18 Dec 2007 11:14:47 PM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 11:26 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importance
of keeping religion in its rightful place.
<snip>
So then why all this crap about getting rid of religion *completely*?!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
19 Dec 2007 01:06:16 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:14:47 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:26 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importance
of keeping religion in its rightful place.
<snip>
So then why all this crap about getting rid of religion *completely*?!
We can dream, can't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
19 Dec 2007 08:12:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:36:16 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:14:47 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:26 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importance
of keeping religion in its rightful place.
<snip>
So then why all this crap about getting rid of religion *completely*?!
We can dream, can't we?
All this reminds me of nearly forty years ago when a friend's first
vote was for the Conservative party because they were going to permit
independent commercial radio and he listened to the offshore pirate
pop stations.
Yet even at that age some of us understood that there were bigger
issues like the economy, unemployment, foreign policy etc.
And that when you vote, you vote for the entire package not just your
favourite bits. Or just how unimportant these can be in the bigger
picture.
Which is how the Bush junta cynically exploited the conservative
Christian vote.
And why both the country and the world has suffered for it.
For democracy to work, it requires a thinking electorate with an
understanding of the issues.
But we're on a downward spiral where we have an increasingly ignorant,
uneducated and unthinking electorate.
The person who fostered and exploited the religious extremist vote
(Rove) was merely a cynical tactician who turned out to have been an
agnostic. He conned them. Causing enormous damage to the country
domestically so that we got an administration that has caused even
more damage, internationally as well as domestically.
It's no accident that there were state senate/etc votes against
abortion, gay marriage etc in the redneck states immediately prior
to the elections, and that initiatives for these were on the same
ballot as the Presidential election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
19 Dec 2007 02:40:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:12:57 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:36:16 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:14:47 -0800 (PST), mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:26 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importance
of keeping religion in its rightful place.
<snip>
So then why all this crap about getting rid of religion *completely*?!
We can dream, can't we?
All this reminds me of nearly forty years ago when a friend's first
vote was for the Conservative party because they were going to permit
independent commercial radio and he listened to the offshore pirate
pop stations.
Yet even at that age some of us understood that there were bigger
issues like the economy, unemployment, foreign policy etc.
And that when you vote, you vote for the entire package not just your
favourite bits. Or just how unimportant these can be in the bigger
picture.
Which is how the Bush junta cynically exploited the conservative
Christian vote.
And why both the country and the world has suffered for it.
For democracy to work, it requires a thinking electorate with an
understanding of the issues.
Hah!
That'll be the day.
But we're on a downward spiral where we have an increasingly ignorant,
uneducated and unthinking electorate.
Deliberately engineered by the corporate elite through crude and
blatant manipulation of the mass media, as well as politicians,
designed to turn most of us into compliant greedy consumers, (and
encouraged by governments, for the same purpose).
The person who fostered and exploited the religious extremist vote
(Rove) was merely a cynical tactician who turned out to have been an
agnostic. He conned them. Causing enormous damage to the country
domestically so that we got an administration that has caused even
more damage, internationally as well as domestically.
It's no accident that there were state senate/etc votes against
abortion, gay marriage etc in the redneck states immediately prior
to the elections, and that initiatives for these were on the same
ballot as the Presidential election.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 03:48:52 PM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 11:26=EF=BF=BDam, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20071214/NRSTAF...=
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
<snip>
Yet 84 percent said religion should not be an issue
at the polls. Good for them. If only other Americans believed in separatio=
n
of church and state, too.
If a candidate believes that a herd of full size elephants is busily
fornicating under his bed, invisibly and inaudibly to humans other
than himself, and that the elephants fit under there, and that it's
all due to a miracle, and that he needs no other justification than
"faith" ....... well, IMO, that candidate is not fit to be president.
A candidate who believes other varieties of silly ***** isn't fit to be
president either.
In a contest where all candidates believe silly *****, this kid will
vote for the one who is least irrational, who believes the least and
least silly of the silly *****.
Of course a candidate's beliefs should be an issue!
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pubkeybreaker" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 07:17:40 AM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 1:26 pm, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAF...
So Romney tried to set the record straight with a speech in which he asked
for religious tolerance. He also stressed that, if elected, he would uphold
the separation of church and state.
We in Massachusetts know this to be a lie. He was (unfortunately!)
our governor
for 4 years. During that time he made many legislative and political
decisions
based purely upon his religious ideology (e.g. his stand on stem
cells; he made it
clear that his decision to veto funding was based on his religious
ideology)
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
In Iowa, where the presidential caucus will be
held next month, a Newsweek poll found that 17 percent of likely Republican
caucus participants said a candidate's religion was "very important" in
determining their vote.
I am reading this in alt.education. I would find it interesting if
someone
could come up with (at least fairly) accurate data regarding the level
of
education of those voting based on religion vs. those who vote based
on
issues and a candidate's integrity and stand on the issues.
I suspect very strongly that the ignorant and poorly educated use
religion as a substitute for rational thought in making a voting
decision.
All one need do is compare the levels of education in the 'red' vs.
'blue'
states along with the respective attitudes toward religious based
decision
making.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 11:03:23 AM |
|
|
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 11:12:42 AM |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
Because faith has no basis in reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pubkeybreaker" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 12:30:56 PM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 12:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
Because faith has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, the politician is then basing policy upon *his* faith.
Passing a law based upon a particular faith does not "promote the
general
welfare".
He has no right to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else.
[but right wing religious kooks all want to do just this]
The 1st amendment is supposed to prevent laws being passed based on
religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 12:41:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
Because faith has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, the politician is then basing policy upon *his* faith.
Passing a law based upon a particular faith does not "promote the
general
welfare".
He has no right to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else.
[but right wing religious kooks all want to do just this]
The 1st amendment is supposed to prevent laws being passed based on
religion.
Whatever his religious belief (including not having one) there are
always more people who don't share it than do - whether they are
different religions, different denominations or none.
But in any case a country needs a leader who makes decisions and does
actions for rational reasons not irrational ones.
Those who want a President of their own religion, want one who will
impose it and its doctrinal mores on everybody else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pubkeybreaker" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
18 Dec 2007 06:04:53 AM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 1:41 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
Because faith has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, the politician is then basing policy upon *his* faith.
Passing a law based upon a particular faith does not "promote the
general
welfare".
He has no right to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else.
[but right wing religious kooks all want to do just this]
The 1st amendment is supposed to prevent laws being passed based on
religion.
Whatever his religious belief (including not having one) there are
always more people who don't share it than do - whether they are
different religions, different denominations or none.
But in any case a country needs a leader who makes decisions and does
actions for rational reasons not irrational ones.
Those who want a President of their own religion, want one who will
impose it and its doctrinal mores on everybody else.
Well said. We are, as the saying goes, in violent agreement.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
17 Dec 2007 02:47:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:41:00 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), Pubkeybreaker
<pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:12 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Pubkeybreaker wrote:
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith.
I don't care one whit about *WHICH* faith he espouses. I do care that
he
he bases decisions about public policy based on his faith. No elected
official should do that.
Why not?
Because faith has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, the politician is then basing policy upon *his* faith.
Passing a law based upon a particular faith does not "promote the
general
welfare".
He has no right to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else.
[but right wing religious kooks all want to do just this]
The 1st amendment is supposed to prevent laws being passed based on
religion.
Whatever his religious belief (including not having one) there are
always more people who don't share it than do - whether they are
different religions, different denominations or none.
But in any case a country needs a leader who makes decisions and does
actions for rational reasons not irrational ones.
Those who want a President of their own religion, want one who will
impose it and its doctrinal mores on everybody else.
And so it has been since tribes existed...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
19 Dec 2007 07:53:14 AM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 1:26=EF=BF=BDpm, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=3D/20071214/NRSTAF...=
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 am
When Tony Blair was prime minister of Great Britain, a reporter tried to
interview him about his religious faith. Absolutely not, Blair's press
secretary told the reporter. "We don't do God."
Most British politicians, indeed most European politicians, "don't do God.=
"
They believe that religion is an intensely private matter and to discuss i=
t
publicly is unseemly.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft, an Englishman writing in The New York Times, put it
succinctly: "In striking contrast to America, religion plays no part in
British political life."
What irony! In Britain, where the Anglican Church is the official religion=
"by law established," British politicians do not rattle on about their
religion. But in America, where the U.S. Constitution forbids the
establishment of religion and guarantees the separation of church and
state, our politicians spout off about their religious faith with ease and=
frequency. Especially when they're pandering for votes.
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney "did God" the other day to repair
political damage he's suffering in Iowa. Polls show that Christian
conservatives find Romney's Mormon religion baffling and even frightening.=
Many Christian conservatives are fleeing his ship for Mike Huckabee. The
former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister presumably makes Iowa
Republicans feel more comfortable. They're highly familiar with Huckabee's=
Baptist denomination, and his speeches often sound like sermons.
But Mormons? With only 2 million members and their beliefs a mystery to
most Americans, Mormonism is suspect. Many Americans associate Mormons wit=
h
polygamy, even though it was outlawed more than a century ago. Others worr=
y
that the Mormon faith isn't really a bona fide Christian religion.
So Romney tried to set the record straight with a speech in which he asked=
for religious tolerance. He also stressed that, if elected, he would uphol=
d
the separation of church and state.
The pity is that Romney felt compelled to make the speech in the first
place. If separation of church and state means what it says, politicians
should not have to pass religious testing. Instead, presidential fitness
should be determined by a candidate's qualifications, governmental
experience and platform.
For surely we've learned by now that a president's religious preference ha=
s
scant effect on success in the Oval Office. Our two "born again" president=
s
-- George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter -- have not been dazzling chief
executives.
The Founding Fathers were religious men, but they understood the importanc=
e
of keeping religion in its rightful place. Early settlers had fled Europe
to escape religious persecution, and the framers of the Constitution
resolved to keep church and state separate.
Yet religious testing, sorry to say, has remained a fixture in American
history. Here in North Carolina, Jews were not allowed to run for public
office until 1868. Catholics were also victims of exclusionary politics
across the nation.
When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he felt compelled to quiet=
fears about his Catholic faith in a speech to Southern Baptists in Texas.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute," he stressed.
A national poll recently found that one in four voters expressed concern
about Romney's Mormon faith. In Iowa, where the presidential caucus will b=
e
held next month, a Newsweek poll found that 17 percent of likely Republica=
n
caucus participants said a candidate's religion was "very important" in
determining their vote. Another 30 percent said it was "somewhat
important." Thus 47 percent say religion will influence their vote.
A few nights ago, CNN's Lou Dobbs asked listeners whether a candidate's
religion should be a factor in elections. The e-mail response was, of
course, unscientific. Yet 84 percent said religion should not be an issue
at the polls. Good for them. If only other Americans believed in separatio=
n
of church and state, too.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of Americahttp://members.tripod.com/~can=
dst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Presenthttp://members.tripod.com/~candst/the=
ocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and Statehttp://members=
..tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =EF=BF=BD Historical Reality SepChurch&Statehttp://groups.yahoo.c=
om/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. =EF=BF=
=BDWords
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "=
a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." =EF=BF=BDNew York Trust Co. v=
.. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDTHE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Yes, it should be a factor.
No religious nuts
No militant atheists
Seek balance.
Really most people have no problems with Christians, Atheists or
Muslims.
The problem arise when the Christians, Atheists or Muslims become too
militant or extreme or out of balance.
The moderate theist accepts a moderate atheist, just as a moderate
atheist accepts a moderate theist.
It is out of balance, extreme views that sets one apart.
Problems within society do not come from Muslims...the problems come
from extreme Muslims.
Same with all the rest whether Christian or Atheist...seek
balance...seek inner peace within and with all.
Ken Humphreys talks about 'getting high' on religion. We can also get
high on hatred and other emotions, so there are many areas to look out
for when the subject turns to balanced living.
Many people gravitate towards extreme views since this works magic on
blinding them from the pain in their lives.
A few years ago I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about a
con man named Charles Ponzi. He was credited with inventing the first
pyramid scheme.
The article stated when Ponzi was interviewed he was asked how he was
able to swindle so many people so easily, his responded, "When a man's
mind is concentrated he is blind."
This case of having your mind concentrated to the point of blindness
is not anything new. The ancient philosophers new this well. They
called it "putting passion before reason."
Both these areas of passion and reason where the foundation of much
philosophical discussion of ethics and virtue with the ancient Greeks.
They knew when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for
reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy
the passions.
When our minds are occupied with too much wreckage of the past, too
many problems and complexities and out of control passions then there
is little room left in it for reasoning. It is then easy to fall into
extreme thinking.
You think it is political biz as usual in the US?
If the brainiacs cannot 'kind a'' replace crude with a sustainable
alternative we are headed for disaster.
So Dem or Rep...any politician in charge had better come to terms with
how things really are and not live in dream land...we are running out
of time.
It seems everyone wishes to hide their heads in the sand when it comes
to this subject of peak oil. We can't depend on the President to come
clean with the public. All his energies are spent just trying to keep
the oil flowing. He can't admit that the oil will stop in the not so
distant future, no matter what we do. It is a problem beyond his as
well as all of our control.
As they say in 12 Step programs - admitting you have a problem is step
1. And our country cannot admit it, after all, admitting this problem
would raise hell with our retirement funds. And until we can admit it,
we cannot begin on our long road to a 'semblance' of recovery.
And in the big picture, we can't fix the problem, we can only postpone
the inevitable. But buying a little more time would make things much
more livable in the not so distant future than the current path we are
headed in.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning
trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means
allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But
ten billion people can't burn the trees! (Ten billion people is a
conservative estimate of world population in the not so distant
future. We are at 7 people billion now.)
The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:
"At current production levels coal will be available for at least the
next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas."
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=3D21
Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on
'current production and consumption' it gives the same haunting
message to the generations to come.
We may not exactly see the end of our free flowing energy as we know
it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future.
This is the legacy they will inherit from us. But before the energy
dries up completely massive changes in our world will have taken
place.
Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no
return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it
today when it comes to their energy demands.
And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. And even if
we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take
the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.
And what does all that consumerism lead to?
It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will
be in once India and China pick up momentum to copycat the envious
lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the 'American Dream'
You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all
its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all
the needs the people crave.
The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and
all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth
gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are
depleted.
Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World
banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to
fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for
Federal bankers to lower interest rates...so the stock market can go
up...fueled by spending of the consumer.
It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get
away from.
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low
interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a
life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it
comes to durable goods.
All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our
retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global
warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the
governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem
artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them
happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW
You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We
are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable
means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our
environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and
natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are
using it all up in just a few hundred years...we can never pay it
back.
I think our countries future will be....'America...a Democratic,
Communist Nation Under God.'
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism? Maybe it should be
Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have little interest in
politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But
with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us
from the atheist based communists that have been run as
dictatorships.
Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no
tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will
still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as
the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel.
All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. So
long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply'
of crude for it own needs.
Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of crude may
not be so kind to keep on selling it to us and we need a 'local and
continual' source somewhat within our borders. You see, jet fuel as
well as gasoline deteriorates and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we
must always be producing some of it to replace the stale stuff to
supply the military. But, that's why we elect politicians to deal with
these troubles
As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only
get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will
become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether
most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits
us in the not so distant future.
When it comes to the future, I see people living in miniature houses
(the lucky ones that survive that is, after all most of the population
died off long ago from starvation, freezing to death or from the
riots) with roofs shingled completely with solar material.
They drive up to their house on an electric scooter that is recharged
from their solar roof. If they are higher up the totem pole they may
have a solar golf cart. But in either case, luck must still be on
their side for without the sun shinning to charge it, their
transportation sits idle. (Not much lead left to build big
batteries...China gobbled it all up, so we have to make due with very
small storage cells.)
They work for the government and in exchange the government feeds and
clothes them from their warehouses. You see, we have become a sort of
'Communist Democracy' for without that bold leap and a desire 'to put
our country first' Russia or China would have stepped in to acquire
some new real estate.
The warehouses are fed from government owned coal fired steam
locomotives. Diesel dried up long ago, so it was either wood or coal
to fuel the trains. It did not take our government long to realize
this. the electric plants only had to shut down sporadically for 8
months so until they could build the first of a large fleet of steam
locomotives.
This was a 'slight' government oversight. They never figured that the
coal fired power plants were fed with 'diesel powered' locomotives.
They kept concentrated on the prediction that we had a hundred of
years of coal left, but were oblivious as to how that coal is
delivered to the power plant. But all these changes have some bright
spots in them. As the coal producers were able to hire many more
workers to manually mine coal, as the diesel powered mining equipment
sit idle from lack of diesel fuel.
Now some of the states or bigger cities had the foresight to build one
or two electric rail trolleys for public transport. Your only problem
is getting to the main road to catch the trolley and then it is a
straight ride to the government warehouse.
What happened to Private industry & Money?
Money is nothing more than stored energy. But since the crude dried
up, the 'real energy' behind the money has vanished...and so did
private industry. What about the coal mines...all government owned. If
you want to eat you work..it is that simple.
So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your *****?
Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than
that.
Martha Stewart syndrome died out long ago, now people are happy to eat
rice and beans and get a clean glass of water to drink.
After all, the government can't afford to fool around decorating
everyone's house, they can hardly produce enough food to keep a
fraction of the population alive. Yes, tractors, reapers and farming
is very crude intensive...but no one bothered to think about that as
they continued to squander the worlds petroleum resources.
On a positive note, since most of the population died off from
'natural causes', the government does not have to worry about passing
'population control' any longer. They tried to get that universally
opposed program passed for many years, but the public just would not
go for it...too UN-American...goes against our religious
upbringings...too controversial and all of the rest. We can still hear
the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby
Killer....Hitler....Impeach the President!!!!
Such objections are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind.
As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this
are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial
man. If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as 'too
controversial' just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true,
false or I don't know?
This introspective method may help you become truth based and not ego
based. You will have made a 'choice divorced of need'...you wont 'need
your ego' to support the truth...the truth will be able to stand on
its own.
But nature helped us humans out with that hard decision - for nature
does not discriminate nor find the truth too controversial or
provocative or opinionated to be true. And in the end, nature settled
the dispute of population control with even handed justice of 75% of
our population dying off, ever reminding us all that nature does not
bow to man...it is always man that bows to nature.
But, people hold no grudges against nature and are more in harmony
with nature and enjoy a simpler life nowadays. People pick pine
needles from trees to make their tea, since there is no jet fuel to
import any Darjeeling tea or coffee. Once in a while people are able
to kill a bird, a rat or cat to supplement their diet - so we still
can find a place of gratitude in our life for such gifts.
Of course one problem still haunts the world?
The last remaining buckets of crude will soon be gone and they have
still not found out how to make the tires for the solar powered golf
carts and scooters without that critical ingredient of crude oil?
Add it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.
And for dessert add 'politics as usual' and we can see nothing
substantive will be done in the US to fix our energy woes until it is
too late. (Really it can't be fixed, we can only slowed down the
inevitable at this point.)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
BTW, do I like communism?
No, I like things EXACTLY as they are. But what I like doesn't
matter...neither does what you like matter. That's the point, for the
US to survive, we must put 'what matters to our country' on the front
burner. And as our country survives so do we survive.
Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.
Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.
The atheists can still be atheists and the Christians, Muslims and
Jews can still worship as they like...that is why we would be a free
democracy...of sorts.
But the difference is, instead of the ego based decisions that
politicians and the titans of business get sucked into, they will put
the long term viability as top priority over personal profit. We must
all pull together and stop pulling in counterproductive directions.
The gov needs to cut the fat and stop all this foolish sickness that
they are addicted to in Washington. Hire yourself some truth based
philosophers and futurists as Socrates suggested in the Republic as an
oversight committee to keep you guys on track.
One important thing would be to add an addendum to the constitution or
bill of rights or whatever other documents that outlines what we are
'now' all about...something that is clear advice that we can all look
to and not the 1000 page BS that politician use to hide their
sickness.
And yes,...hiding behavior is a signpost of die-ease.
And put it right upfront in the addendum as to why things changed...we
were energy whores and had no other choice.
But realize this, throughout history many great nations that once were
are not around any longer. Hopefully the US will understand this and
start accepting the truth that something has to give and it can't be
business as usual...it doesn't matter what you like...it doesn't
matter what you hope for...all that really matters is what is.
See:
http://www.algore.org/forum/al_gore_news_and_events/gores_work_combat_climat=
e_crisis/why_dont_we_do_anything_about_global_
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/08050=
55762
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp=
/0871138883
http://dieoff.org/
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 05:41:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:26:09 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Yes.
Those who are religious should be stricken from the lists due to
mental incapacity.
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 06:34:22 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:agp8m310p9jrn3tparuhm8r98vnm33i1b8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:26:09 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Yes.
Those who are religious should be stricken from the lists due to
mental incapacity.
:
Then you oppose religious freedom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 07:54:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:34:22 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:agp8m310p9jrn3tparuhm8r98vnm33i1b8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:26:09 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Yes.
Those who are religious should be stricken from the lists due to
mental incapacity.
:
Then you oppose religious freedom?
No, I oppose the behaviour that is a result of the acquired mental
disfunction.
You are being deliberately dishonest by putting words into my mouth
that I have never expressed.
Stop it, if you are able.
You can believe what you like.
It is just when this crazy belief emerges into maladaptive public
behaviour that I want the *behaviour* banned, not the belief.
I can repeat this til I am blue in the face, but dishonest Christians
with cognitive dissonance keep repeating their false claims.
Will you do that too?
Or will you actually read and understand what i actually write, rather
than inventing positions for me, like you just did?
Anyone who is crazy enough to believe a bunch of juvenile
self-contradictory genocidal woman hating hooey as say Christianity,
or Islam, and publically declares that it will have an effect on their
behaviour as an elected official, instantly renders themselves unfit
for the post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 08:29:28 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4u09m31483l39egsidpaismb223d4rqprv@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:34:22 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:agp8m310p9jrn3tparuhm8r98vnm33i1b8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:26:09 -0500, buckeye <buckeyeelo@nospam.net>
wrote:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NRSTAFF/712140301
Rosemary Roberts: Should religion be a factor at the polls?
Yes.
Those who are religious should be stricken from the lists due to
mental incapacity.
:
Then you oppose religious freedom?
No, I oppose the behaviour that is a result of the acquired mental
disfunction.
You are being deliberately dishonest by putting words into my mouth
that I have never expressed.
Stop it, if you are able.
You can believe what you like.
It is just when this crazy belief emerges into maladaptive public
behaviour that I want the *behaviour* banned, not the belief.
I can repeat this til I am blue in the face, but dishonest Christians
with cognitive dissonance keep repeating their false claims.
Will you do that too?
Or will you actually read and understand what i actually write, rather
than inventing positions for me, like you just did?
Anyone who is crazy enough to believe a bunch of juvenile
self-contradictory genocidal woman hating hooey as say Christianity,
or Islam, and publically declares that it will have an effect on their
behaviour as an elected official, instantly renders themselves unfit
for the post.
You are the one that is intellectually dishonest here.
If one is going to be bound by/to religion, then one is going to seek out a
candidate that will reflect that binding. It may or may not be valid to
place the emphisis like that, but if you are going to be honest, then you
MUST accept that it will happen.
If you want to prevent it from happening, then you have to put a religious
test on the candidates so that religious candidates do not make the ballot,
or you have to put a religious test on the voters.
Since it is you that suggested that religious persons should be "stricken
because of mental incapacity," then I have no option but to assume you
oppose religious freedom. Either you oppose religious freedom, in which case
there should a test of either the candidate or the voter to guage their
suitability for office or to vote; or you are in favor of religious freedom,
in which case a religious candidate and voter can make thier own choices and
nobody is striken because of "mental incapacity."
These are your words my friend, not mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
15 Dec 2007 09:24:43 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
If one is going to be bound by/to religion, then one is going to seek out a
candidate that will reflect that binding.
Why?
I'm overweight. Should I insist that the candidate be overweight?
Should women insist that the candidate be female? Should welfare
recipients insist that he be on welfare?
It may or may not be valid to
place the emphisis like that, but if you are going to be honest, then you
MUST accept that it will happen.
There will be people who shoplift, too. Shouldn't the stores simply
accept that it will happen?
If you want to prevent it from happening, then you have to put a religious
test on the candidates so that religious candidates do not make the ballot,
or you have to put a religious test on the voters.
There is always "education".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
16 Dec 2007 02:35:56 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ka69m31l64gf8b176tf0ti3aqei8k7s09v@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
If one is going to be bound by/to religion, then one is going to seek out
a
candidate that will reflect that binding.
Why?
Why not?
I'm overweight. Should I insist that the candidate be overweight?
Should women insist that the candidate be female? Should welfare
recipients insist that he be on welfare?
You/they could. I'm not pretending it is a good strategy for selecting
leaders, but I freely pretend that there are voters that do it.
It may or may not be valid to
place the emphisis like that, but if you are going to be honest, then you
MUST accept that it will happen.
There will be people who shoplift, too. Shouldn't the stores simply
accept that it will happen?
No. Shoplifting is a crime. Voting was not a crime, last time I checked.
If you want to prevent it from happening, then you have to put a religious
test on the candidates so that religious candidates do not make the
ballot,
or you have to put a religious test on the voters.
There is always "education".
That's an option, but the leftist liberals have pretty much destroyed
education in the name of making sure that Johnny gets promoted along with
the other children, despite the fact he can barely read and write his own
name.
Educating the electorate through the public school system would all but
guarantee a socialist form of government, in which case we would not have an
electorate that would need to be educated. Alternatively, we could return
the school system to a state where Johnny does not progress through the
system until he can read and write and to grade-level math. I do not give a
rat's ***** that Johnny has low self esteem, if he is dumber than a rock then
he needs to not get promoted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: : Should religion be a factor at the polls? |
18 Dec 2007 04:16:30 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ka69m31l64gf8b176tf0ti3aqei8k7s09v@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
If one is going to be bound by/to religion, then one is going to seek out
a
candidate that will reflect that binding.
Why?
Why not?
I'm overweight. Should I insist that the candidate be overweight?
Should women insist that the candidate be female? Should welfare
recipients insist that he be on welfare?
You/they could. I'm not pretending it is a good strategy for selecting
leaders, but I freely pretend that there are voters that do it.
I am sure there are. The question was "why?", or specifically why
would someone's religious be binding on their political choices, but
not their eating choices, or why ones being bound to a religion is
going to make one more likely to search our someone who "reflects that
binding" than being bound to a gender (especially since gender is far
harder to override or ignore than religion).
Saying that some do so is pretty weak in the face of the numbers of
women in office when women are a majority of voters, in contrast with
your rather absolutist conditional that those bound to a religion WILL
choose a candidate based on that binding.
It may or may not be valid to
place the emphisis like that, but if you are going to be honest, then you
MUST accept that it will happen.
There will be people who shoplift, too. Shouldn't the stores simply
accept that it will happen?
No. Shoplifting is a crime. Voting was not a crime, last time I checked.
Shoplifting is a choice. So is membership in a religion. Whether one
is a shoplifter is somewhat more relevant to whether they would make a
good office-holder than their religious beliefs are, since it reflects
on their attitu | | | | | | | |
