The Lesser Of Two Evils

That's funny, because I have often said that Christians and Conservatives are the "worst tragedy to ever befall America." (Sigh) I guess we will never see eye to eye.

g.i. forgive me, but i thought in an earlier post you indicated that lumping everyone into one category or another was lazy and ignorant. but then, perhaps, i mis-read

What exactly would be wrong with a Christian believing nation?

Yes Billy, a fine post. And lets look at nations that have removed God from their governments and people, they failed. I too admired TJ, back when I was a party animal libertarian. Then I got married, had kids, and accepted the gift of Christ. Now the scribblings of TJ reflects his ignorance.

Again, what would be wrong with a Christian believing nation?

I didn't say anything about theology, just asked a question.

Seized power? I'm reminding of the question recently posed to a town hall participant, "What world do you spend most of your time on"

Do you know what seize even means? It certainly doesn't mean to be democratically elected, which is exactly how Barack Obama got into office. There was no seizing. People felt he was the better candidate. He got more votes than Clinton did or Bush did. He won by almost 200 electoral votes, over 8 million votes, and by seven per cent. That's not even remotely close to seizing.

Actually it has been proven on a national stage (ie presidential election) that those most conservative or liberal do not get elected. The standard bearer of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was certainly conservative in some areas but not in all areas.

Many consider Bill Clinton to be the standard bearer for liberalism, but he doesn't even come close. He was a moderate Democrat at the most.

Those that are most liberal and most conservative typically fall by the wayside in primaries and rarely make it to the general election.

billyjb,

Why the focus on just government officials? How about everyone? There's no violation of the 1st Amendment. It was really a simple question, you don't have to go on the attack.

The attack;

"So you know more about theology than the author of the Declaration of Independence because you're married?"

What does theology, or the study of God, have to do with the my original question?

If you can't or won't answer the question, just leave it.

How can we possibly be a Christian believing nation. Look at the cause of all the problems surrounding this country right now. Violations of all 10 commandments. If Godly men and women were put in office, would we be having problems in the governance of our country? of course not. If all people who call themselves Christians lived their lives according the the Bible, would they be having any problems, of course not. But then again we are human and are doomed to fail. I guess I was looking for an answer as to what would this nation be like if we all lived our lives to a Biblical standard.

As for calling Jefferson ignorant, let's not forget he is a human being and should be subject to scrutiny, if he believed governance and Godliness should be separate, then yes he is an ignorant fool. Everything else he did may have been great.

I must say I am saddened, but we all must go through life.

I guess back to the subject at hand, it is my opinion that the traditional Republican vs Democrat battle lines have become blurred. It is now Conservative vs liberal. The 2006 election brought in many Democratic representatives with conservative leanings. Some may have lied about them to get elected, but the voters are holding their feet to the fire, which explains why PBHO is having no progress with his health care initiatives. The so call "moderate" (read: liberal) Republicans have been swept out, as their records tends to show, they would have supported nationalized health care.

There is a greater chasm occurring, rural vs urban.

"...if he believed governance and Godliness should be separate, then yes he is an ignorant fool. Everything else he did may have been great."

This is an interesting thought...Jefferson without question believed that Christian "Godliness" and Godliness in general, ought to be a matter left to private citizens and kept far from governance. This is well documented (try a goole search if you don't believe me: Jefferson religion, or read a biography of his).

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

So TJ in your opinion is an ignorant fool, yet he "may have done great things." Could you be more specific? What great things

may he have done?" Certainly helping to found the USA isn't on your list of great things since he advocated so strongly for removing God and Church from the formation of the Federal Government.

One more question: Are all the other founders who believed, like Jefferson, that the Church and God didn't belong in government ignorant fools also? If so, there were a lot of people in agreement with Jefferson on this subject...so essentially you are saying that a great portion of the men who helped establish the US were ignorant fools?

billy and Iggy,

Are you guy's suggesting Thomas Jefferson has more wisdom than God?

Sceptre,

"To start, the claim that H.R. 1388 was passed "behind our backs" is false, and the bill had nothing to do with Palestinian refugees in any case.

H.R. 1388 actually expands AmeriCorps and other federal public service programs, more than tripling the total number of positions to 250,000. It got lots of publicity as it worked its way through Congress, including a widely reprinted Associated Press story on March 31 when the House cleared the final version for the president's signature. The headline: "Congress Expands Ways for Americans to Help Others."

President Obama later signed the measure at a public ceremony that also got plenty of publicity. The idea that Congress was trying to slip something through unnoticed, or that the news media ignored it, is wrong.

The author, we conclude, is alluding to false claims about H.R. 1388 that had been circulating previously on the Internet. We exposed these e-rumors in an Ask FactCheck item we posted March 31. In summary, it said:

Q: Is Congress creating a mandatory public service system? Are participants not allowed to go to church?

A: The national service bill does not mandate that youth must participate nor does it forbid anyone who does participate from going to church.

For full details, click through to read the entire item, which we won't repeat here.

The e-mail message is mainly devoted to repeating a second false rumor that we had taken on in another Ask FactCheck item on Feb. 19. In summary we said:

Q: Did Obama pay for Hamas-affiliated terrorists to emigrate to the United States?

A: This claim is false. The president's memorandum to the State Department would pay for refugee assistance in Gaza, not for transporting anyone to the U.S.

Again, consult the full article for more on the Hamas falsehood.

Partly true: It's true that Palestinian leader Abbas was among the first leaders to receive a telephone call from Obama on the day after he took office. Obama also called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, to signal a determination to press for peace in the region.

The claim that Abbas got a call before the others, however, rests on a statement by Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina, who quoted Obama as saying: "This is my first phone call to a foreign leader, and I'm making it only hours after I took office." We can't confirm whether or not that part is true. And in any case, as the New York Daily News reported quoting diplomatic sources, "[W]ho a President phones first when he makes a flurry of calls is more often a matter of scheduling and availability, not favoritism."

True: It's true that Obama's first formal TV interview after taking office was with Al Arabiya. He said peace talks should resume, and also said, "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

Partly True: It is not entirely true that Obama's "first executive order" facilitates abortions. What the author is referring to is a presidential memorandum (different from an executive order) that was signed Jan. 23. It overturned a policy that was first established by Ronald Reagan, rescinded by Bill Clinton and reimposed by George W. Bush. The so-called "Mexico City Policy" had cut off foreign aid money to any private aid group that provided advice, counseling or information regarding abortion, even if they used their own money for those purposes.

As CNN reported, the result of the order is to allow U.S. money to flow to "clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services." But Obama had signed at least half a dozen executive orders and presidential memoranda before getting to this one, so it was by no means his "first." For the record, Obama said in his memo that the restrictions he overturned "have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations."

True: It is true that on Jan. 22 Obama ordered the Guantanamo prison facility to be "closed as soon as practicable" and no later than Jan. 22, 2010. The same order also halted all trials of detainees before military commissions set up during the Bush administration. On the same day he ordered CIA interrogation centers closed down and required that questioning of detainees follow the Army Field Manual.

Partly True: As a consequece of Obama's shutting down trials by military commission, a judge did drop charges against terrorist suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. But the charges were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning that they can be reinstated at a later date. So the claim that the president "withdrew all charges" is misleading."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/hr-1388...

OR...

Could it be nothing more than politicians in red-states, a few governors and congressmen specifically, trying to pander to and score points with their hyper-sensitive emotional base that lose their heads and embarrasses themselves almost nightly in town hall meetings?

What is funny is that these governors (think Sanford, Jindal, and Perry among others) were all, "Bailout money robs Americans of their entrepreneurial spirit, let's all talk about succeeding in public," but as soon as their voters weren't looking, they couldn't write their stimulus acceptance letters fast enough.

Why should any one be surprised though? Right? Accepting money you told your voters you wouldn't take certainly isn't the first time (or even the 10th or 20th for that matter) that a Rep. leader has preached vehemently one thing, and then sneaked off behind closed doors (or airport bathroom stalls) to what he just told his constituents he abhors and would never do.

Thanks for the lecture SW. We hypocrites would be a lost bunch without your even-handed judgements keeping us in line.

I just have a couple questions:

What part of Jefferson's stance on the church & state issue was left out?

When were Jefferson's religious beliefs brought up by Chunky or myself?

SWNebr,

If you would like to have a more comprehensive discussion about TJ's beliefs I will be happy to. I have read several of his biographies and know the subject quite well.

When you say, "try to cherry pick and only present one side to bolster your claims without any regard to a more complete picture," I am confused. A statement was made by Chunk concerning the foolishness of Jefferson for his advocating of removing God from government. This was the position I was specifically responding to. So as I said, if you want to begin a thread involving a more comprehensive perspective, by all means, I would love to participate. But as a rule of argument, it is better to use counter-arguments that are concise, succinct and to the point. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, I take issue with this statement, "I can't speak for the man but I believe he wouldn't be thrilled about any of the examples provided above of the work of the "socialism" in government."

Jefferson (and Franklin) spent a great deal of time leading up to and after the Revolutionary war in France, listening to French philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists and the like. Many of these French scholars and theorists can be linked directly to great thinkers of social organizations (such as Marx...say what you will about his philosophy, the man was an incredible thinker). So then, when you look at our Constitution and you see socialist underpinnings such as "free and public education," a federal government charged with "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare," a reduction of the power of the executive branch, these are all eventualities of the codified socialist principles laid out my Marx and his confreres.

So to say that Jefferson would not have wanted "socialism" in government is misleading. He (among others in our governance) certainly advocated for principles from which later socialists axioms would arise.

Guillermo:

I believe there is a difference between desiring social justice and seeing the federal government as being the driving force behind it. Often debates about centralized power are oversimplified where each side sees themselves as the "good guys" and the opposition as an evil that must be eliminated.

Those who oppose "socialism" do not oppose it because they don't want people to be healty, wealthy and wise. Rather they have a different view of how to reach those goals. I am tired of the partisanism and rhetoric that forces people to choose sides then try to yell louder. I'm glad you are so well read and like to cite obscure theoreticians to make you feel superior and show that we who don't agree with you must be uneducated at best or as you sometimes call us mentally deficient.

Do you not feel there is a "general welfare" within the United States?

Is our society in shambles, and on the verge of collapse?

"General welfare" in my opinion is for the common good, not the welfare of every person guaranteed by the goverment.

Your example of Jefferson and Franklin listening to Frech philosophizers reminds me of a conversation you had previously here. I can't help but point out that although Obama was a member of Wright's church for several years doesn't prove he holds the same beliefs.

In summation: I think Jefferson holds all the personal beliefs that any other caring person would have and would want society to be just, I don't think you can make the argument that he would be in favor of the tremendous increase in governmental power that is necessary for and increases because of the "socialism" that I alluded to. Nor do I believe he would have seen the government as the force to create a just society. From where do you get the impression that he would be in favor of a large centralized government that would regulate the individual welfare of its citizens? I could be wrong but I still see that as a better example of a Jeffersonian nightmare rather than dream.

S&DC,

I hope that you did not take what I said about TJ being God seriously. I have no idea what God is like or how "smart" he/she/it is...if you go back, that comment was an extension (read:punchline) of the comparison I made between Chunky's comment and the SNL 'Da Bears' skit.

As far as having "honest truthful Christians" in government, why can't it simply be "honest truthful people?" Does not being Christian preclude you from being honest? Because, the majority (maybe overwhelmingly) of all US politicians in the history of US politicians have claimed some one version of Christianity as their religious system. And I have to say, US politics, for being so full of Christians, is hardly , nor has it ever been, a very "honest or truthful" institution.

SW,

Point taken and I believe you are correct more so then me at that point...

GI,

I was using the TJ over God thing as a point to say I am a tolerant person of all ideals and beliefs... My honest truthful christians comment was made in that exact content... that they all say they are affiliated in one way or another with some kind of church or christian belief but don't show it in their actions... For once I would like to see a politician say "I don't go to church.." or just come right out and admit that they aren't some upstanding figure in church you know??

Guillermo,

How can you have socialism without a large centralized government? The great hallmarks of American style socialism Medicare and Social Security require a level of governmental control that I think Jefferson would have found appalling. Do you think he would embrace them?

As for the obscurity of your citations, lets do a poll: Who can tell me who Leroux, Owens, and Marx are and give me a brief description of thier theories off the top of thier heads.

Theories are wonderful things, and I'm glad you know the hearts and minds of Socialist and Communist theoreticians, unfortunately the reality is far different than the theory.

You seem to be wanting to make an argument about Social theories I only made a point about Jefferson's fear of centralized power, I'm sorry but you haven't conviced me I'm wrong.

Guillermo,

Do you mean to sound condescending or is it just part of your nature to be so?

I thought I clarified, but obviously I failed to do so, that I was NOT speaking of ideals and theories but rather of practical real life world experience. How many states have successufully transitioned from the need of a strong central government into the socialistic ideal?

I was unaware of the economic controls in place in Spain. So in Spain the central government is very weak while control is wielded by the local authorities without intereference and heavy oversight by the central government?

"And so, once again, I say that I am certain (because I have read several Jefferson biographies) that he would not have wanted a large and powerful centralized government"

I'm sorry I must have missed where you said this previously because that is the only point I was trying to make, it seems we didn't need to have this exchange at all if you already agreed with my premise. I may not have stated my point clearly enough perhaps I should have put some pointless quotes and citations for no one to follow up on.

Another thought has occured to me: for someone who opposes "socialism" you sure do spend an awful lot of time defending it even when it isn't under attack in my opinion.

I am not sure where or why you think I sound condescending, but I can assure you that until now I have not intended to sound that way.

I think it would be the height of stupidity to try a realistic argument that Jefferson would have opposed the everyday practical eventualities of socialism since: a) socialism had not been organized and written about in a systematic way (read:invented), and b) Jefferson favored the practice of public education and redistribution of private banks, among other examples, which were eventually collectively called "socialism."

"So in Spain the central government is very weak while control is wielded by the local authorities without intereference and heavy oversight by the central government?"

The relationship between autonomous communities and the central government is much more complicated than the simple way you like to think about it because like the UK it has both a parliament and a monarch and all these forms are in constant conversation and tension with each other. And under the Statue of Autonomy, each community gets to decide the range and scope of their more local governments also, which add more dimensions to the national political landscape. If you wish to say that there is no interference or heavy oversight by the central government, this is a very simple way of stating it, but it is not necessarily untrue. Many Republicans who advocate state's rights in the US, would love the Statute of Autonomy and the "state's rights" that is so preeminent in Spain's autonomous communities.

"I'm sorry I must have missed where you said this...I may not have stated my point clearly enough perhaps I should have put some pointless quotes and citations for no one to follow up on."

Several posts above it reads...

"And I would tend to agree that enormous an federal government would have been troubling to the founders."

I find it revelatory of your skill as a reader as well as the depth of your thinking that you found any quotes or citations I may have provided to support my claims..."pointless"... but I do not find it surprising.

The only thing I will say CPB (and this addresses your last paragraph as well SW) is that America has had elements of socialism about it since the beginning. It is a BALANCE of socialism and free-market theory...capitalism has grown our economy huge, and socialism has regulated it to make humane. Think regulated workweek, minimum wage, child labor laws, and really any law/regulation that protects the worker over the business.

I defend socialism because it is an intrinsic part of the birth of our nation and the history of our success and morality. If you want to see a socialist success story you have to look no further than the last 200 years in America.

I will also defend capitalism from pure socialists based on the same line of reasoning. That of course isn't necessary here because everyone seems to be laboring under the ridiculous assumption that there never has been a large socialist aspect to the formation of the USA.

Guillermo,

So NOW you INTEND to be condescending but previously you did so by accident of your nature? Is that what you mean to say for that is how I understand it.

I must beg forgiveness that I think in simple terms on a shallow level and exhibit the height of stupidity.

As for your argument about not wanting to argue the practical realities of modern socialism and Jeffersonian ideals... I may be wrong, because apparently I am mentally deficient in some way; but I thought we had this discussion a few months back about projecting labels backwards onto things that had not been described as such but existed in fact. Do you recall?

Do you interpret that quote you posted about private control of banks to be endorsing a federal bank?

What was point did the cute little quote by Einstein have to do with our discussion...or was it "pointless"?

You already agreed with the only point I was trying to make, I don't see any further need for petty nit-picking. As I said a couple of times I do not speak of Socialism in the textbook, idealized definitions it appears to me you are referring.

As far as condescension is concerned: if you wish to throw out silly statements regarding the "pointlessness" of something I have cited, you can rest assured it will be replied to in kind. If you wish to keep your quips to yourself, then I will be compelled to do the same.

I do recall the conversation you are referring to, and as I recall I stated then as I do now, that saying Jefferson was not a supporter of socialism is inaccurate. Certainly some of the principles which later became the foundation for defining socialism Jefferson supported, but Jefferson could not have supported or refuted socialism WRIT LARGE because the theory the way you and I can read it was not written. But French philosophers certainly were dreaming up the foundations and influencing England's upstart rivals with their socialist arguments.

"Do you interpret that quote you posted about private control of banks to be endorsing a federal bank?"

If I recall correctly, Jefferson denied the charter to reestablish the 2nd Bank of the United States (BUS) which pissed off the Rothschilds to no end and probably helped start the war of 1812. And out of that war came the 2nd charter for a BUS so no I do not interpret that quote to be endorsing a federal bank.

BUT you have to keep in mind that the way the BUS was established under Hamilton was to charter a single privately owned company to have absolute authority for issuing currency and regulating inflation and deflation. The privately owned part was what I think Jefferson determined was unconstitutional.

Here is a website that illuminates this better...

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/...

"What was point did the cute little quote by Einstein have to do with our discussion...or was it "pointless"?"

Well certainly it was from a source off topic, hence the inclusion of "just for fun." But the point of using that quote was to demonstrate ANOTHER figure from history who, like Jefferson, his genius and scope of knowledge is undeniable, and who (like Jefferson) also believed socialism to be a worthy economic system (albeit as we discussed Jefferson would not have known to call his beliefs socialist). I included the quote to alleviate your anxiousness (since Einstein may have been another historic figure you wouldn't associate with socialism) in admitting the truth of the matter: that Jefferson was influenced by the fathers of socialist thought in France, and imported that philosophy to America, and even wrote some of these principles into the Constitution.

"As I said a couple of times I do not speak of Socialism in the textbook, idealized definitions it appears to me you are referring."

I hope you are not arguing here that examples of socialism working and working well do not exist. To make the argument would be to ignore most of northern Europe which is mostly socialist and prospering. You can look at the top ten countries with the highest standards of living and every year the top 5 are all socialist countries, usually 8 or 9 of the top 10. The US is never in the top 5 and sometimes not in the top 10.

Apparently these countries have the ideal figured out quite realistically.

"a BALANCE of socialism and free-market theory...capitalism has grown our economy huge, and socialism has regulated it to make humane. Think regulated workweek, minimum wage, child labor laws, and really any law/regulation that protects the worker over the business." Guillermo Inglaterra.

CRAP, I agree.

Think I'll go boil myself in lye.

What a highly stupid name for a philosopher.

Yes, I admit it, it is true...I must descend (a great deal in your case) from superiority in order to discuss much of anything with you.

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him. - Sun Tzu

Everyone needs to lighten up and get over themselves

--Me

Thank you Bill, I'm glad you agree. 8-)

Hey Goober Peas (Peanut Butter Man)

Simple Bible Based Christianity -- the answer.

Which Bible -- Which branch of Christianity?

Non-Denominational Bible-Based Church.

Fundamentalist Baptist Faith Bible Based Church.

Bible Based, using only the original Aramaic text, or the First Greek Text, or the commonly used KING JAMES version, specifically edited and rewritten to justify King James setting up his own church which would allow him to steal, abuse human rights, whore indiscriminately, murder at will, imprison without formal charges or trial -- That is a true Bible believing administration.

There are several Bible Based Fundamentalist churches which use poisonous snakes in their worship services in Appalachia.

Maybe those are the Christians you follow.

Here in the U.S. of A., there are only several thousand separate Bible Based Protestant Churches.

There are no Bible Based Protestant Churches which can document direct connections to the earliest Christian groups in the Middle East, Greece and Rome.

Before you ask these ignorant country boys to follow a specific Bible Based faith -- You are going to have to define exactly which version you advocate.

By the time you accomplish that -- there will probably be a split among that church's membership, with another Bible Based Christian church arising because of a disagreement concerning the correct color of the Pastor's tie.

HerndonHank,

Did you choose to ignore my comment to put aside church denominations? Why?

In addition to Aramaic and Greek, the Bible was also written in Hebrew.

The King James Version was written to satisfy king james, not to justify his actions. The Truths are still there.

I personally don't know any "snake handlers". Can't find that act in the Bible.

Your cynicism is noted.

Chunky,

About a month ago, I asked you where in the Bible Jesus preached that homosexuality was a sin.

You responded that in in Leviticus, "The Lord Jesus, the Creator" named homosexuality as a sin.

I assumed that to mean that you believed that the entire Bible reflected Jesus's opinions, and not just the New Testament.

If I was correct in my assumption, please explain why it's not valid to quote the old testament when talking about "straight out of the Bible" Christianity.

And if I was incorrect in my assumption, and you believe Jesus's new covenant made leviticus null and void, I will ask again: "where in the Bible does Jesus teach that homosexuality is a sin."

Now, if you're saying that our new "bible literal" Christian utopia will ignore the Old Testament completely, maybe I can get on board with that. (although, I wouldn't quite call that "bible literal" then.)

But I do have a few questions then.

In our New Testament utopia, do I have to be enemies with my family? (as Jesus says I will be in Matthew 10:35)

And how can I be beset against my family when I have to "honor my father and mother"? For which the penalty is still death (Matthew 15:4)

At least homosexuals will still be put to DEATH (along with adulterers)

Romans 1:31

And how can we ignore the Old Testament laws, when Jesus himself said:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Matthew 5:17

Except most religions and secular philosophies do not have as much blood on their hands as Christians and Muslims.

G.I,

I was not trying to assert that you were blaming contemporary Christians/Muslims for the transgressions of their predecessors. Just wanted to share my thoughts on that matter.

I prefer to stick to more secular philosophies myself. I prefer the humanistic views on morality/ethics over the divine.

Steffanie,

Amen. Jihad is horrible. I'm glad there aren't any verses in the Bible that advocate the death penalty for nonbelievers.

(except for Deuteronomy 17. we can ignore that, right?)

SW,

"Stands to reason they would be responsible for most of the bloodshed."

Right, I remember the great Hindu wars from history class? How about the terrible Buddhist inquisition? That was a humdinger. How about the terrible purging of the righteous by the atheist/agnostic hordes?

Denying that Christians and Muslims have a long and terrible history of importing violence in the name of their God on a global scale, and that death in the name of God is still a common practice (albeit to a lesser degree amongst Christians) is detrimental to truth and really just plain silly.

"I am blaming the ideologies that compel rational and decent people to act irrationally and without morality."

Here is a perfect example in a difference between our ways of thinking.

I don't blame ideology, politics, religion, economic systems, etc. for ANYTHING. Instead I blame the individuals who act irrationally and without morality. I believe those people who are immoral would act in a similar manner anyway but that by cloaking it within a particular ideology they feel they can deflect personal criticism. You appear complicit when you blame Christians or Christianity for the atrocities committed by someone who claims to be a Christrian, where I would blame the offender.

I'm glad we can agree to disagree, that is if I read you correctly. I hold a view in which individuals are responsible for thier own beliefs and actions that are counter to thier cultures' rules and you apparently, if I read correctly, blame thier cultures for their actions.

If you are going to include all of a person's culture when discussing thier motives for violence, not just religion, I fully agree that we are all products of our lives and times. However, from your previous statement I think you meant that religion, specifically Christianity and Islam to be the driving force for violence? With which I cannot agree. I speak of those people who commit violence that goes against the norms of thier overall society, for example the man who shot Dr. Tiller. Although he claimed to be a Christian I don't believe he speaks for all or even a majority of American Christians.

A different example: to attempt to either blame or separate the contemporaneous religious beliefs of Middle Age Christians or Muslims from the overall culture and seek to blame religion for the wars seems a narrow and weak argument. If this is not what you intend then disregard.

I get it that you are such a supremely intelligent and advanced individual that you have evolved beyond the need for any "superstition" and that appear to hold those who do in contempt. I didn't say nor have I ever said that one needs a religion to have a good moral grounding. However I also don't attack those who do. Was your comment about bloodshed anything other than an attempt to harass Christians or Muslims in an attempt to create an argument? For that is all it appeared to be to me.

"Atheists have killed more people due to euthanasia and abortion than all religious zealot caused deaths so what is your point godless ones????"

Accept that just as many Christians and people with religious beliefs get abortions as atheists. SO there goes that little insight.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/...

http://www.parent-teen.com/newsreleases2...

gi

Your previous exchange with SWNT suggests that you believe that outside forces tend to influence ones way of thinking. Wouldn't you have to agree that those same Christian abortions would have been influenced by other outside "driving forces" (such as liberal politicians proclaiming pro-choice over pro-life)?

You can't have it both ways...unless you think that Christians are only influenced by the church.

I believe Steffanie's point wasn't that only atheists have abortions, but rather that they (and their left wing goons) have contributed to the social acceptance of abortions.

GI & SWN,

Interesting discussion about where to place blame, on the individual or on his/her acculteration.

My own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There is individual responsibility, but there is also a cultural responsibility.

To make an extreme example:

Let's say a sociopath were to have a child, and he raised that child in his basement, with no other human interaction. The sociopath teaches the child horrible things about the "outside world", and instills in that child a deep seated hatred and mistrust of outsiders, going as far as to teach the child that he should kill all outsiders, indiscriminately.

This is all the child is taught, for his whole upbringing, until he becomes a man. At which time, he is sent from the basement with a knife, and sent to kill as many 'outsiders' as possible. Which he does.

Now in this scenario, as horrible as it is to imagine, I would not place the fault on the child who grew into a grown murderer. I would place most of the blame on the acculturation he experienced while developing his view of the world.

Perhaps a more contemporary and prescient example: Violent Muslim extremists. Men who execute innocents in the street, along with themselves. I would never claim that these men have no individual responsibility. They absolutely do.

But, understand that many of them have been taught since birth to be a 'martyr' for god. That they've grown up being told the highest honor you can achieve is to sacrifice yourself in an act of violence. They've been taught that westerners are evil, and that they wish to exterminate Islam from the face of the earth. That they wholeheartedly believe they will be awarded with paradise for their sacrifice in this struggle. They absolutely believe all of this.

Certainly SOME blame must rest on the culture. Much of it lies at the feet of 'radical Islam', and some small measure of it must be placed on Islam in general.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. But the culture an individual is exposed to is responsible, in at least some way, for shaping the actions of the individual. We must recognize the blame falls on both if we are to take any action to rectify the situation. Individuals can be incarcerated, isolated from society. But we must recognize the influence of the culture the individual grew up in. We must because it's in our society's best interest to take collective action to rectify the culture.

jhat,

Jesus' opinions? Please explain.

I don't recall in my post saying the Old Testament was void, nor do I recall Jesus saying the Old Testament was void.

The 10 Commandments are that, commandments which we are all to live by.

I see also you are taking specific verses from the Bible and taking them out of context. Anyone looking up jhat's verses are well advised to read 2 or 3 verses ahead and 2 to 3 verses after to get Jesus' full context.

It boils down to this, if you want to believe, then believe. If not, don't. But we will be there for you if you change your mind.

"I prefer the humanistic views on morality/ethics over the divine." jhat.

Some exapmles please.

How else can you measure Christianity? Why are polls only scientific if they are measuring Obama's dropping numbers? Do these people merely say they disapprove of Obama or are they practicing Obama haters? There is a difference.

The point is that polling of the breadth and that scope statistically accounts for the folks that merely say they are Christian. This is most familiarly referred to as the Bradley Effect, and scientists employing this method account for this by wording the questions in such a way as to obscure the real intent of asking them.

CPB,

What I'm saying is, that I had previously asked for a bible quotation where Jesus says homosexuality is wrong.

In response, you cited Leviticius, stating that it was a quote from "Jesus, the Creator". Are you reversing your position? Is that not Jesus now? If so, could you point me towards where Jesus ACTUALLY says homosexuality is a sin.

As far as what moral/ethical systems I subscribe to... I don't subscribe to any ONE. I take aspects from any and all moral systems that I find positive, and combine them into my own.

A more "humanistic" view would be a view of morality that focuses on human society instead of divine law. Instead of having morals handed down from on high, I believe they can be derived from non-supernatural means. I unfortunately have a plane to catch now, so I can't go into this further. Another time perhaps.

"It boils down to this, if you want to believe, then believe. If not, don't."

And I was not arguing against belief here. I have no problem with what anyone believes. I was arguing that a society that follows biblical law literally, is not necessarily a place I want to live. Or that I would suspect many people, would want to live.

"The 10 Commandments are that, commandments which we are all to live by."

I'm not saying that they're not commandments that Christians live by. I'm just saying that if was the omnipotent deity of the universe, I would include anti-slavery/anti-violence/anti-rape commandments, perhaps instead of having the first 4 simply appeal to my vanity.

SW,

It is not the people I think poorly of, it the philosophy that internalize and allow to govern their minds and behavior that I tend to not favor.

And if I didn't care what you thought, I wouldn't take the time to argue with you.

Husker23,

It is your pettiness that kicked off this little insult fest (see "arrogant twit"). If you want to go back to a more civilized discourse, I am amenable to that. If not, I will mark you down as a Steffanie or a Sceptre and treat you accordingly.

Hank, is there something you would like to talk about?

Of course I would like to have a more civilized discussion...been there, tried that. My first post about abortions was a sincere and honest question posed to you about the influence of the outside world (including liberal pro-choice people). Your reply (in my view) was to rearrange my question in an attempt to talk down to me as though I must be a buffoon to believe that abortions didn't exist before liberals. Which was, needless to say, completely off target.

Shouting matches don't help, and I take responsibility for my part.

It is obvious that you are well-versed about the topics that you discuss. However, your lack of honesty about your political position gives the impression that you are an advocate for the political center, while at the same time referring to Nixon and Reagan as criminals and calling their deaths something to "celebrate". Calling for the prosecution of Bush and his associates to be tried for criminal offenses.

It just appears to me that you are the same stereotypical liberal left-wing biased blogger, dressing up your comments in a more appeasing and articulate manner.

I have not referred to, nor personally attacked, any Liberal leader in such a negative light as you have current and former Conservative leaders. I would suspect that no matter what decision a public official makes, he/she is setting themselves up for a lot of negative scrutiny and personal attacks. Are there dishonest, conniving and corrupt political leaders? Absolutely, but given the credibility of all media today, much of that reporting is nothing more than speculation bordering on political propaganda.

Who in their right minds would accept a job in which every single decision made is going to be dissected? Right down to what dog you choose, or what color of tie you are wearing? Would you put yourself in the line of political fire as they have?

Bush would have been criticized by one group had he not gone to the extent he did to protect this country. He continues to be raked over the coals by the libs for going to that same extent. Yet here we are, coming up on 8 years later, without an attack on U.S. soil. What do you suppose they would be saying about him if he didn't take the stance that he did, and we had been attacked again? They would have ostracized him for failing to protect. I remember quite clearly the day that he took that bullhorn and proclaimed to the world, "I can here you! I can here you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" No teleprompters needed...I was never more proud to be an American than at that very moment.

I cannot speak for Steffanie and Sceptre, but I can certainly understand their frustrations in communicating with the other side. At some point it becomes easier to jab, than it is to continue to try and get our points across. Which, agreeably, can be counter-productive.

A good friend introduced me to this quote years ago: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Friedrich Nietzsche). I believe in that quote...and I believe we all have well intentioned thoughts and opinions that deserve to be debated.

Want a civilized debate? Yes...just leave the "looooooong" patronizing poking to the extremists and I will do the same.

I'm so glad husker23 and Guillermo Inglaterra (Iggy) kissed and made up. I for one am so glad Iggy proves his superior intellect.(PUKE)

Now HerndonHank, show me where in the Holy Bible, does Jesus Christ approve of the things you said. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

Thank you Iggy, I feel your love.

Why I am not surprised that you do not know what the terms "civilized discourse" and "decent people" means.

I think I will stay here in the good ole US of A...I forgot how much I like the midwest. I can really have an impact here I think.

Much appreciated Chunk...though I will not need luck to conquer conservative philosophy...just...solid thinking.