not sure hwy you quoted me for this...the very definition of conservative is to stay w/ the status quo, liberals are more open to things, just the way it goes
conservatism:
capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
One group may be more inclined to stick with tradition and one may be willing to embrace change and new ways more.
I don't think because one leans towards tradition that they are any less "open to others", which was what your original statement said.
I will agree that imo, "left-leaning" people seem to way more include a humanitarian bent. That by no means equates to openmindedness, though as humanitarian people have blindspots and biases like anyone, unless they consciously work to weed them out and to become open-minded. Open mindedness was the term PaperPlates mentioned, and I agreed it is rare--I find it's the rare person who rather than defending their flaws and biases, are open to growing. Letting go of giving one's self permission to justify lack of understanding is rare from what I see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
One group may be more inclined to stick with tradition and one may be willing to embrace change and new ways more.
I don't think because one leans towards tradition that they are any less "open to others", which was what your original statement said.
as refering to religion (which is what i meant in my post which was a reply to cornifer discussing liberal religious ppl vs conservative religious ppl) i still believe that more liberal ppl would be more open to ppl of other religions than conservatives would be...this doesn't mean no conservative would be
I will agree that imo, "left-leaning" people seem to way more include a humanitarian bent. That by no means equates to openmindedness, though as humanitarian people have blindspots and biases like anyone, unless they consciously work to weed them out and to become open-minded. Open mindedness was the term PaperPlates mentioned, and I agreed it is rare--I find it's the rare person who rather than defending their flaws and biases, are open to growing. Letting go of giving one's self permission to justify lack of understanding is rare from what I see.
that is a whole nother subject and you get into the tricky waters of 'labels' and who is actually what...a lot of ppl think hillary is liberal but i wouldn't describe her as such
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
as refering to religion (which is what i meant in my post which was a reply to cornifer discussing liberal religious ppl vs conservative religious ppl) i still believe that more liberal ppl would be more open to ppl of other religions than conservatives would be...this doesn't mean no conservative would be
that is a whole nother subject and you get into the tricky waters of 'labels' and who is actually what...a lot of ppl think hillary is liberal but i wouldn't describe her as such
You actually cover what I hear as the biggest bias from the "left" on this board, being religion, or should I say Christianity. And from what I gather, people justify that point as a valid bias, when I don't think it is valid to close our minds to understanding.
At the least, I'm thinking you must agree that left-leaning people are human and therefore have biases and blind spots. Or do you?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You actually cover what I hear as the biggest bias from the "left" on this board, being religion, or should I say Christianity. And from what I gather, people justify that point as a valid bias, when I don't think it is valid to close our minds to understanding.
At the least, I'm thinking you must agree that left-leaning people are human and therefore have biases and blind spots. Or do you?
of course ppl have certain biases, that doesn't necessarily mean it would invalidate or color their judgement.
i'm not discussing if 'more liberal' ppl are more 'open-minded' in an overall sense (again, labels)...but, i think if you compare how ppl of differing religions are treated they would be treated nicer and more openly by ppl who are more 'liberal'.
there is a certain bias towards christianity and i can't speak for anyone but me...i don't automatically judge someone b/c they say they are christian or most of the other religions (excluding ones involving sacrifice) and when i deride someone and say something negative about a 'christian' it is not aimed at anyone other than those whose actions have stated that's how they are, not someone like cornifer or hhkc who considers himself a christian
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Where did Miller go? Did he cry himself to sleep b/c something Hannity and O'Reilly told him about conservatives of the past was actually a lie? I haven't seen him duck and cover over an argument for a long time.
Why is it that I am still hearing the phrase, "our country was founded on Christian principles." The bottom line is that in spite of Christian right attempts to rewrite history to make the founding fathers into Christians, little about their philosophy resembles that of Christianity. And yet our political leaders use this principle to gain a large amount of votes especially in the bible belt. And it most definitely has an influence on laws that are created and enforced. Why can't people see that Christianity is used to influence people's beliefs and values to whatever shape and form needed? I'm absolutely sick and tired of hearing arguments about gay marriage, abortion, and similar topics with religious as a foundation for someone's stance. Thoughts?
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Keep in mind that TJ's writings were written in the context of coming out of a religious and political governing authority. That doesn't mean that the govt should be limiting religion or its free excercise of, just that it should only ensure no establishment of religion within the govt.
You tagged it with the seperation of church and state which Jefferson did not write but rather a Federal judge (named Black I believe) who wrote an opinion adding those words in the 40's. What is interesting is that Black wrote the opinion supporting the reimbursement of travel funds to individuals for attending paroachial or religious schools, upholding a NJ law. His point was that it did not cause a breakdown of the 'wall of seperation of church and state' for the state to reimburse everyone, not just those attending public schools.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
You tagged it with the seperation of church and state which Jefferson did not write but rather a Federal judge (named Black I believe) who wrote an opinion adding those words in the 40's. What is interesting is that Black wrote the opinion supporting the reimbursement of travel funds to individuals for attending paroachial or religious schools, upholding a NJ law. His point was that it did not cause a breakdown of the 'wall of seperation of church and state' for the state to reimburse everyone, not just those attending public schools.
I think I misunderstood this part of your post ... you didn't mean to imply that Jefferson never used the phrase "wall of separation," did you? He certainly did use it, in the letter to the Danbury Baptists that he still stands posted. Justice Black merely quoted Jefferson in his opinion, stating "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
Where did Miller go? Did he cry himself to sleep b/c something Hannity and O'Reilly told him about conservatives of the past was actually a lie? I haven't seen him duck and cover over an argument for a long time.
Miller almost never responds to me. I must say, he was a lot friendlier in his left-leaning moderate incarnation on a board I used to hang out at a couple of years ago.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I happen to be both a proud republican and pearl jam fan. I taped the storyteller show on vh1 on my dvr and just watched it. To my dissapoinment, Eddie's first comment was a typical uneducated, liberal-entertainer comment, I did not record the show to hear. Why can't actor's and singer's just do what we pay them to do, ENTERTAIN US!!!! If you want to express your political opinion's, do so at the appropriate time and venue.
A little advice for all entertainers out there, its not good business practice to alienate half your possible fan pool. It also dosen't make sense to work in the entertainment industry and be pro-choice. Since Roe became law you have lost 30,000,000 possible fans.
Just some thoughts.
I happen to be both a proud republican and pearl jam fan. I taped the storyteller show on vh1 on my dvr and just watched it. To my dissapoinment, Eddie's first comment was a typical uneducated, liberal-entertainer comment, I did not record the show to hear. Why can't actor's and singer's just do what we pay them to do, ENTERTAIN US!!!! If you want to express your political opinion's, do so at the appropriate time and venue.
A little advice for all entertainers out there, its not good business practice to alienate half your possible fan pool. It also dosen't make sense to work in the entertainment industry and be pro-choice. Since Roe became law you have lost 30,000,000 possible fans.
Just some thoughts.
It is also very poor practice to criticize someone for being "uneducated" when your very own post is riddled with punctuation errors that should have been remedied by your third grade English teacher.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Although I am a republican, I am not a member of the christian-right. With that said, you would have to be blind to believe our founding fathers did not envision this country as a christian country. What they did not want was a religous-tyranny which England had with the Anglican church of England. The establishment clause was created to gaurentee religous freedom not seperation.
Since the first gavel dropped in both houses of congress, the session opened with a biblical prayer. If you were educated in those days you probably received it in your local church accompanied by prayer. Every president since GW has asked god to bless this country, and they were refering to "allah" or "budda".
It's late, and i didn't know my third-grade teacher posted messages as hippiemom. I am here to exchange ideas not critique any one's grammer skills. Your reply seemed very lacking in any critique to my thoughts, but if you want to be my editor the job is yours.
Although I am a republican, I am not a member of the christian-right. With that said, you would have to be blind to believe our founding fathers did not envision this country as a christian country. What they did not want was a religous-tyranny which England had with the Anglican church of England. The establishment clause was created to gaurentee religous freedom not seperation.
Since the first gavel dropped in both houses of congress, the session opened with a biblical prayer. If you were educated in those days you probably received it in your local church accompanied by prayer. Every president since GW has asked god to bless this country, and they were refering to "allah" or "budda".
If the founders envisioned this as a Christian nation, why are God and Jesus so conspicuously missing from the Constitution? Surely you don't think that was an accident?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
If the founders envisioned this as a Christian nation, why are God and Jesus so conspicuously missing from the Constitution? Surely you don't think that was an accident?
First, the Declaration... established the birth of our country. It's opening paragraph exclaims that our rights are "endowed by the creator"(God). We the people then entrust the government through our elected representatives to establish the framework, which they did with the constitution. The constitution layed out the nuts and bolts of the law and government structure.
I find it interesting that I have responded to every point you make, yet you seem lacking in substance to any of my points. I may have missed some english grammer classes but you seemed to have missed the entire semester of debate101.
First, the Declaration... established the birth of our country. It's opening paragraph exclaims that our rights are "endowed by the creator"(God). We the people then entrust the government through our elected representatives to establish the framework, which they did with the constitution. The constitution layed out the nuts and bolts of the law and government structure.
The Declaration didn't establish anything. It enumerated the grievances the founders had with the king of England and declared our independence from his rule. A great deal had yet to be done to establish our nation.
In the Declaration, Jefferson does indeed mention a creator, and also "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He specifically avoids any reference that could be connected to Christianity, and the framers of the Constitution mention religion only in stating that there should be no religious test required as a qualification for public office, and again in the Bill of Rights to insure that church and government will not meddle in each others affairs.
I fail to see how this could possibly convey the impression that they envisioned ours as a Christian nation. These were not oversights. The "no religious test" clause was hotly debated all over the country, as most state constitutions did indeed have religious tests for office-seekers. The framers quite deliberately sought to change that.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I find it interesting that I have responded to every point you make, yet you seem lacking in substance to any of my points. I may have missed some english grammer classes but you seemed to have missed the entire semester of debate101.
My, my, aren't we impatient! Has it occurred to you that I might be doing something other than hitting the refresh button every thirty seconds, awaiting your replies with bated breath?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Well, it's been a full eleven minutes since I replied, and still nothing from you. You seemed to assume a seven minute response time, so I'm guessing that we're through for the night. It's been fun, goodnight!
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Please explain what "natures god', "creator", "devine providence" and "supreme judge of the land" are in the declaration. They are all references to god.
I happen to be both a proud republican and pearl jam fan. I taped the storyteller show on vh1 on my dvr and just watched it. To my dissapoinment, Eddie's first comment was a typical uneducated, liberal-entertainer comment, I did not record the show to hear. Why can't actor's and singer's just do what we pay them to do, ENTERTAIN US!!!! If you want to express your political opinion's, do so at the appropriate time and venue.
A little advice for all entertainers out there, its not good business practice to alienate half your possible fan pool. It also dosen't make sense to work in the entertainment industry and be pro-choice. Since Roe became law you have lost 30,000,000 possible fans.
Just some thoughts.
the show was called storytellers... it's about telling the stories behind various songs. if those happen to be political, then that's what you were in for when you turned in. furthermore, ed has been doing this since day one and if you didnt mind it in 1992 why is it all of a sudden a problem now?
as ed said, he's comfortable with people being turned off by their politics. in his mind, it's worth the risk to talk about things he feels are very important to him. perhaps it's bad business, but i think it's been clear since they fought ticketmaster and stopped doing videos that this isn't about business to them, it's about creating art and communicating with their fans, not selling product. if you're into music-as-business, there's a whole slew of artificially created business acts on mtv for your consumption.
how is being an entertainer and being pro-choice any different from being a policeman or a doctor or a teacher and being pro-choice? since when do our jobs dictate our beliefs? does your boss tell you how to vote?
Please explain what "natures god', "creator", "devine providence" and "supreme judge of the land" are in the declaration. They are all references to god.
nature's god, creator, and supreme judge of the land, as spoken of by hippiemom in her post RE john adams, seem to be more references to a "common law" type of morality than any christian doctrine. it is more about humanistic, unviersally accepted principles in the west... dont steal what isnt yours, dont kill other people, be free to pursue your own personal happiness as long as that is not impinging on the happiness of another.
their letters to each other clearly indicate they did not have any plan for a christian government. the goal was a society where people were free to pursue their own vision of happiness. this means legislating christian beliefs (teaching genesis in schools, anti-stem cell research, etc) is NOT in line with the founders' intentions. they left england specifically to AVOID such laws that dictate that regardless of your personal beliefs, you must live by a given moral compass set by the government upon its religious persuasion.
Please explain what "natures god', "creator", "devine providence" and "supreme judge of the land" are in the declaration. They are all references to god.
I think the important document to look at is the constitution since this is the document that governs us. This is very different from the declaration of independence which is a very historically significant document but not one that governs us today. The Articles of Confederation would be a more relevant document to look at for this topic than the declaration of independence. Declaration = 1776. Constituion = 1789 (actually I think not all the states signed until 1799 with Delaware being the last, because of the same topic we are talking about now). In THIS document it was determined that our government must not only be separate and isolated from religious faith and practice, but that this arrangement was a necessary component of true religious freedom.
Anyways the point is not if you can peruse the consitutition or declaration and find a few "god related" words and throw them in your argument out of context. The point is reasoned debate as to why or not you believe in separation of church and state, or if you believe in faith-based politics, or a hybrid of the two.
The bottom line is that 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services during the 1790s (Wood - "The Radicalism of the American Revolution"). Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity. It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. So basically, Christians are trying to take back something that never existed. Christians do themselves no favor by bending history to suit their prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. The vast majority of the founding fathers could best be defined as Deists. And if you believe that Deism is secondary to Christianity, do a little research.
If a government can use religion as a platform, then when they win we become a monotheistic country. Obviously not directly, but if religion determines if you vote republican or democrat (by the way it does) more than your gender, ethnicity, income level, etc. what does this mean for the future of our country??? It means that conservative Christian beliefs and values will govern our country. And THAT would probably go against the first amendment... Unfortunately the Christian right has probably already won the battle, as our great president once said, while he was governor of Texas, that "you must believe in Jesus Christ to enter heaven."
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I happen to be both a proud republican and pearl jam fan. I taped the storyteller show on vh1 on my dvr and just watched it. To my dissapoinment, Eddie's first comment was a typical uneducated, liberal-entertainer comment, I did not record the show to hear. Why can't actor's and singer's just do what we pay them to do, ENTERTAIN US!!!! If you want to express your political opinion's, do so at the appropriate time and venue.
A little advice for all entertainers out there, its not good business practice to alienate half your possible fan pool. It also dosen't make sense to work in the entertainment industry and be pro-choice. Since Roe became law you have lost 30,000,000 possible fans.
Just some thoughts.
Oh, Lord. Typical conservative PJ fan drivel.
"JUST SHUT UP AND DANCE, MONKEY!"
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
Can you imagine where we'd Muhammad Ali would be if he just "shut up at fought"?
I don't know, I think its better for entertainers to just shut up, be brain dead, not give a fuck about anything, not take a stand or opinion in any regard, and fill the time with their mindless work.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
of course ppl have certain biases, that doesn't necessarily mean it would invalidate or color their judgement.
Where the biases colour judgment, they do, though. So just like conservatives have their views that they believe are correct, to the detriment of the truth, so do liberals. And people in general. As I said before, more people are happy to justify their views and downgrade ones they disagree with, even if only in their own heads. That's agenda protection rather than understanding our surroundings. It's rare that people truly seek understanding of those who oppose them and their ideas.
i'm not discussing if 'more liberal' ppl are more 'open-minded' in an overall sense (again, labels)...but, i think if you compare how ppl of differing religions are treated they would be treated nicer and more openly by ppl who are more 'liberal'.
I can't speak to this generally, at all, since I don't have any sense one way or another.
there is a certain bias towards christianity and i can't speak for anyone but me...i don't automatically judge someone b/c they say they are christian or most of the other religions (excluding ones involving sacrifice) and when i deride someone and say something negative about a 'christian' it is not aimed at anyone other than those whose actions have stated that's how they are, not someone like cornifer or hhkc who considers himself a christian
I'm not in any way specifically condemning you. What I know is that I came to this board and definitely felt that I was left-leaning. I definitely believed the "left" was "right", more aware, and more concerned. I then came to personally believe that "the left" on this board can be as biased and small minded as the "right". I was sad to realise that. I've become convinced that the key is learning to understand each other and to learn to dissolve the lines we draw in the name of being right. It's when we do so, we might then BEGIN to actually understand, rather than uphold the false scripts that we take so seriously--the same ones that are about separation and discord.
There are times--often--when I believe that the "left" is being realistic, and really see what is going on in the world in a visionary sense when others do not have the slightest clue. The majority is literally unable to see what is going on because they are not gifted in a visionary sense. It makes me sick to my stomach, though, when the individuals who are gifted and blessed with the ability to be front-runners and visionaries, due to their unacknowledgement and blindness of their own inner problems, and due to their own lack of skill, respect, etc. give themselves permission to make fun of, bully and talk down to those who cannot see. It's an abuse of power, and it clearly shows the imbalance on behalf of the person doing it. I've seen a lot of condescension coming from the left. It's what happens when people overlook their own problems, think they are right, and give themselves permission to put themselves above others. With great power comes great responsibility.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Why can't actor's and singer's just do what we pay them to do, ENTERTAIN US!!!!
Why do you pay to see someone do something that you don't want to see (or why do you watch something you don't want to see) is my question to you.
Apparently Eddie makes his choices and is willing to live by them. He's entitled, and it seems he's comfortable with that. He doesn't make you watch him at any time. Why do you see bands or watch shows if you don't like the content? Why is it that when you don't like the content, you make it about the other person rather than about challenging your own choices?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Please explain what "natures god', "creator", "devine providence" and "supreme judge of the land" are in the declaration. They are all references to god.
They are references to the spirit of nature, or to that which created us, whatever that may be, or to the spirit of all. The source of our creation is what it is, independant of what labels we put on it, or how we or various religions define it. It is what it is.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, is considered to have been a "self-actualised" person, judged by Abraham Maslow's study of human beings who reached the pinnacle of human realisation. Such individuals are known to go beyond the usual accepted ideas in the main and to appreciate a more realistic level of Truth than the other 98% of the population. By an inner detachment to culturally accepted norms, they are able to see a "fresh rather than stereotyped" version of reality. This can most certainly apply to appreciation of the Source of all nature, beyond the man-made terms and definitions. By holding such a realistic view, rather than a personal-agenda view, contributes to exceptional leadership.
"Resistance to enculturation: Transcendence of any particular culture. SA people have an inner detachment from culture. Although folkways may be observed, SA people are not controlled by them. Working for long term culture improvement, indignation with injustice, inner autonomy, outer acceptance, and the ability to transcend the environment rather than just cope are intrinsic to SA people. "
republicanfan74, if Eddie was a conservative, would you be bitching this much???
"...Never take it seriously. You never take it seriously, you never get hurt; you never get hurt, you always fun; and if you ever get lonely, just go to the record store, and visit your friends."
Comments
One group may be more inclined to stick with tradition and one may be willing to embrace change and new ways more.
I don't think because one leans towards tradition that they are any less "open to others", which was what your original statement said.
I will agree that imo, "left-leaning" people seem to way more include a humanitarian bent. That by no means equates to openmindedness, though as humanitarian people have blindspots and biases like anyone, unless they consciously work to weed them out and to become open-minded. Open mindedness was the term PaperPlates mentioned, and I agreed it is rare--I find it's the rare person who rather than defending their flaws and biases, are open to growing. Letting go of giving one's self permission to justify lack of understanding is rare from what I see.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
as refering to religion (which is what i meant in my post which was a reply to cornifer discussing liberal religious ppl vs conservative religious ppl) i still believe that more liberal ppl would be more open to ppl of other religions than conservatives would be...this doesn't mean no conservative would be
that is a whole nother subject and you get into the tricky waters of 'labels' and who is actually what...a lot of ppl think hillary is liberal but i wouldn't describe her as such
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
At the least, I'm thinking you must agree that left-leaning people are human and therefore have biases and blind spots. Or do you?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
of course ppl have certain biases, that doesn't necessarily mean it would invalidate or color their judgement.
i'm not discussing if 'more liberal' ppl are more 'open-minded' in an overall sense (again, labels)...but, i think if you compare how ppl of differing religions are treated they would be treated nicer and more openly by ppl who are more 'liberal'.
there is a certain bias towards christianity and i can't speak for anyone but me...i don't automatically judge someone b/c they say they are christian or most of the other religions (excluding ones involving sacrifice) and when i deride someone and say something negative about a 'christian' it is not aimed at anyone other than those whose actions have stated that's how they are, not someone like cornifer or hhkc who considers himself a christian
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Keep in mind that TJ's writings were written in the context of coming out of a religious and political governing authority. That doesn't mean that the govt should be limiting religion or its free excercise of, just that it should only ensure no establishment of religion within the govt.
You tagged it with the seperation of church and state which Jefferson did not write but rather a Federal judge (named Black I believe) who wrote an opinion adding those words in the 40's. What is interesting is that Black wrote the opinion supporting the reimbursement of travel funds to individuals for attending paroachial or religious schools, upholding a NJ law. His point was that it did not cause a breakdown of the 'wall of seperation of church and state' for the state to reimburse everyone, not just those attending public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
A little advice for all entertainers out there, its not good business practice to alienate half your possible fan pool. It also dosen't make sense to work in the entertainment industry and be pro-choice. Since Roe became law you have lost 30,000,000 possible fans.
Just some thoughts.
Since the first gavel dropped in both houses of congress, the session opened with a biblical prayer. If you were educated in those days you probably received it in your local church accompanied by prayer. Every president since GW has asked god to bless this country, and they were refering to "allah" or "budda".
In the Declaration, Jefferson does indeed mention a creator, and also "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He specifically avoids any reference that could be connected to Christianity, and the framers of the Constitution mention religion only in stating that there should be no religious test required as a qualification for public office, and again in the Bill of Rights to insure that church and government will not meddle in each others affairs.
I fail to see how this could possibly convey the impression that they envisioned ours as a Christian nation. These were not oversights. The "no religious test" clause was hotly debated all over the country, as most state constitutions did indeed have religious tests for office-seekers. The framers quite deliberately sought to change that.
the show was called storytellers... it's about telling the stories behind various songs. if those happen to be political, then that's what you were in for when you turned in. furthermore, ed has been doing this since day one and if you didnt mind it in 1992 why is it all of a sudden a problem now?
as ed said, he's comfortable with people being turned off by their politics. in his mind, it's worth the risk to talk about things he feels are very important to him. perhaps it's bad business, but i think it's been clear since they fought ticketmaster and stopped doing videos that this isn't about business to them, it's about creating art and communicating with their fans, not selling product. if you're into music-as-business, there's a whole slew of artificially created business acts on mtv for your consumption.
how is being an entertainer and being pro-choice any different from being a policeman or a doctor or a teacher and being pro-choice? since when do our jobs dictate our beliefs? does your boss tell you how to vote?
nature's god, creator, and supreme judge of the land, as spoken of by hippiemom in her post RE john adams, seem to be more references to a "common law" type of morality than any christian doctrine. it is more about humanistic, unviersally accepted principles in the west... dont steal what isnt yours, dont kill other people, be free to pursue your own personal happiness as long as that is not impinging on the happiness of another.
their letters to each other clearly indicate they did not have any plan for a christian government. the goal was a society where people were free to pursue their own vision of happiness. this means legislating christian beliefs (teaching genesis in schools, anti-stem cell research, etc) is NOT in line with the founders' intentions. they left england specifically to AVOID such laws that dictate that regardless of your personal beliefs, you must live by a given moral compass set by the government upon its religious persuasion.
I think the important document to look at is the constitution since this is the document that governs us. This is very different from the declaration of independence which is a very historically significant document but not one that governs us today. The Articles of Confederation would be a more relevant document to look at for this topic than the declaration of independence. Declaration = 1776. Constituion = 1789 (actually I think not all the states signed until 1799 with Delaware being the last, because of the same topic we are talking about now). In THIS document it was determined that our government must not only be separate and isolated from religious faith and practice, but that this arrangement was a necessary component of true religious freedom.
Anyways the point is not if you can peruse the consitutition or declaration and find a few "god related" words and throw them in your argument out of context. The point is reasoned debate as to why or not you believe in separation of church and state, or if you believe in faith-based politics, or a hybrid of the two.
The bottom line is that 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services during the 1790s (Wood - "The Radicalism of the American Revolution"). Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity. It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. So basically, Christians are trying to take back something that never existed. Christians do themselves no favor by bending history to suit their prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. The vast majority of the founding fathers could best be defined as Deists. And if you believe that Deism is secondary to Christianity, do a little research.
If a government can use religion as a platform, then when they win we become a monotheistic country. Obviously not directly, but if religion determines if you vote republican or democrat (by the way it does) more than your gender, ethnicity, income level, etc. what does this mean for the future of our country??? It means that conservative Christian beliefs and values will govern our country. And THAT would probably go against the first amendment... Unfortunately the Christian right has probably already won the battle, as our great president once said, while he was governor of Texas, that "you must believe in Jesus Christ to enter heaven."
"JUST SHUT UP AND DANCE, MONKEY!"
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
I can't speak to this generally, at all, since I don't have any sense one way or another.
I'm not in any way specifically condemning you. What I know is that I came to this board and definitely felt that I was left-leaning. I definitely believed the "left" was "right", more aware, and more concerned. I then came to personally believe that "the left" on this board can be as biased and small minded as the "right". I was sad to realise that. I've become convinced that the key is learning to understand each other and to learn to dissolve the lines we draw in the name of being right. It's when we do so, we might then BEGIN to actually understand, rather than uphold the false scripts that we take so seriously--the same ones that are about separation and discord.
There are times--often--when I believe that the "left" is being realistic, and really see what is going on in the world in a visionary sense when others do not have the slightest clue. The majority is literally unable to see what is going on because they are not gifted in a visionary sense. It makes me sick to my stomach, though, when the individuals who are gifted and blessed with the ability to be front-runners and visionaries, due to their unacknowledgement and blindness of their own inner problems, and due to their own lack of skill, respect, etc. give themselves permission to make fun of, bully and talk down to those who cannot see. It's an abuse of power, and it clearly shows the imbalance on behalf of the person doing it. I've seen a lot of condescension coming from the left. It's what happens when people overlook their own problems, think they are right, and give themselves permission to put themselves above others. With great power comes great responsibility.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Apparently Eddie makes his choices and is willing to live by them. He's entitled, and it seems he's comfortable with that. He doesn't make you watch him at any time. Why do you see bands or watch shows if you don't like the content? Why is it that when you don't like the content, you make it about the other person rather than about challenging your own choices?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
They are references to the spirit of nature, or to that which created us, whatever that may be, or to the spirit of all. The source of our creation is what it is, independant of what labels we put on it, or how we or various religions define it. It is what it is.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, is considered to have been a "self-actualised" person, judged by Abraham Maslow's study of human beings who reached the pinnacle of human realisation. Such individuals are known to go beyond the usual accepted ideas in the main and to appreciate a more realistic level of Truth than the other 98% of the population. By an inner detachment to culturally accepted norms, they are able to see a "fresh rather than stereotyped" version of reality. This can most certainly apply to appreciation of the Source of all nature, beyond the man-made terms and definitions. By holding such a realistic view, rather than a personal-agenda view, contributes to exceptional leadership.
"Resistance to enculturation: Transcendence of any particular culture. SA people have an inner detachment from culture. Although folkways may be observed, SA people are not controlled by them. Working for long term culture improvement, indignation with injustice, inner autonomy, outer acceptance, and the ability to transcend the environment rather than just cope are intrinsic to SA people. "
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!