i find it strange that you post something about bible thumping senators in a thread where the main statement the senator in questions says is "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator." that doesnt sound like bible thumping to me. It sounds to me like the man is a christian, which since we have a representative congress, makes sense.
6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. The mere mention of a "Creator" doesn't bode well when it comes from the mouth of a politician.
The same reason it scares me that there are Islamic extremist governments in the middle east, or Communist extremism in Asia.
Normally it wouldn't be a problem, but in the age where people are so polarised in their beliefs it seems to make more sense not to have them at all.
I'm all for having beliefs if you want them, but things get bad when people try to defend their beliefs. The best defence is a good offence.
That's why I don't like it. On some level I'm terrified this world will be destroyed. Not by one group, but by many trying to destroy the other.
the thing about america though is there are people on both sides of the issue. In Islamic governments and communist asia it's almost a dictatorship and you can't speak against anyone. There will always be people to keep the atheists or christians in check, at least as long as democracy is allowed. How can you eliminate beliefs from government and replace them all with people with no belief and expect it to be somewhat fair?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
the thing about america though is there are people on both sides of the issue. In Islamic governments and communist asia it's almost a dictatorship and you can't speak against anyone. There will always be people to keep the atheists or christians in check, at least as long as democracy is allowed. How can you eliminate beliefs from government and replace them all with people with no belief and expect it to be somewhat fair?
How can you expect fairness in a government with people with only strong beliefs?
There needs to be a balance. Not between extremists on all sides, just unbiased people in charge. Whatever happened to being human? Just being nice to everyone, looking after everyone regardless of religion, sex and race?
How can you expect fairness in a government with people with only strong beliefs?
There needs to be a balance. Not between extremists on all sides, just unbiased people in charge. Whatever happened to being human? Just being nice to everyone, looking after everyone regardless of religion, sex and race?
Whatever happened to Star Trek?
i think theres a misconception out there that the govt is only made up of people with strong beliefs. There are a few who do, plus you have to have strong beliefs or at least stand for something when you are campaigning to represent people or lead the country, just ask john kerry.
There does need to be a balance, and it's prob more balanced than you realize and it's impossible to have unbiased people in general, much less in charge. Don't judge america by it's government judge it by it's actions. There's a lot of good things that americans do to help other americans and other countries. You will always have the fringe groups on both sides, but if life is a bell curve most people fall in the middle and not in the extremes, the reason the extremes get heard is b/c they say shocking extreme things.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
i think theres a misconception out there that the govt is only made up of people with strong beliefs. There are a few who do, plus you have to have strong beliefs or at least stand for something when you are campaigning to represent people or lead the country, just ask john kerry.
There does need to be a balance, and it's prob more balanced than you realize and it's impossible to have unbiased people in general, much less in charge. Don't judge america by it's government judge it by it's actions. There's a lot of good things that americans do to help other americans and other countries. You will always have the fringe groups on both sides, but if life is a bell curve most people fall in the middle and not in the extremes, the reason the extremes get heard is b/c they say shocking extreme things.
I agree that it can't be judged like that, but lately with rising international tensions, the government and a large portion of the population seem to think that there's a huge threat that has to be destroyed.
From the outside in, it appears almost insane. Of course everyone in america doesn't share a paranoid view of the world and there's an even bigger majority that hold reason. But large religious groups hold a lot of sway too, and they pose a threat to freedom more than anything else. Which brings me back to my main point, America could be its own worst enemy.
Unfortunately, I'm at work and can't access Youtube here, but there was a comment to a Ron Paul video with a link to what he said. I can try to find it later when I get home.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.
Unfortunately, I'm at work and can't access Youtube here, but there was a comment to a Ron Paul video with a link to what he said. I can try to find it later when I get home.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.
Thanks for the response. Though I tend to align myself with the statement from the first response "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life." And that is something that people always argue and tend to align with based on their religious view.
I see where he's coming from on the second, i think he could have phrased it much better but from the bolded part I think he may be implying that founding fathers wanted to make sure teh govt didn't get overbearing, but I can easily see how it could be taken a different way. I don't know which way he meant.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Thanks for the response. Though I tend to align myself with the statement from the first response "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life." And that is something that people always argue and tend to align with based on their religious view.
I see where he's coming from on the second, i think he could have phrased it much better but from the bolded part I think he may be implying that founding fathers wanted to make sure teh govt didn't get overbearing, but I can easily see how it could be taken a different way. I don't know which way he meant.
I agree that he could have meant it in a different way. I can't find the original link, but he went into a little more detail about it. Either way, his views on religion and abortion will keep me from voting for him. Too bad because I agree with him on a lot of other things.
Comments
6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. The mere mention of a "Creator" doesn't bode well when it comes from the mouth of a politician.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
in some ways i agree with that. But why does it scare you, personally.
The same reason it scares me that there are Islamic extremist governments in the middle east, or Communist extremism in Asia.
Normally it wouldn't be a problem, but in the age where people are so polarised in their beliefs it seems to make more sense not to have them at all.
I'm all for having beliefs if you want them, but things get bad when people try to defend their beliefs. The best defence is a good offence.
That's why I don't like it. On some level I'm terrified this world will be destroyed. Not by one group, but by many trying to destroy the other.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
the thing about america though is there are people on both sides of the issue. In Islamic governments and communist asia it's almost a dictatorship and you can't speak against anyone. There will always be people to keep the atheists or christians in check, at least as long as democracy is allowed. How can you eliminate beliefs from government and replace them all with people with no belief and expect it to be somewhat fair?
How can you expect fairness in a government with people with only strong beliefs?
There needs to be a balance. Not between extremists on all sides, just unbiased people in charge. Whatever happened to being human? Just being nice to everyone, looking after everyone regardless of religion, sex and race?
Whatever happened to Star Trek?
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
LOL!!!
-Enoch Powell
i think theres a misconception out there that the govt is only made up of people with strong beliefs. There are a few who do, plus you have to have strong beliefs or at least stand for something when you are campaigning to represent people or lead the country, just ask john kerry.
There does need to be a balance, and it's prob more balanced than you realize and it's impossible to have unbiased people in general, much less in charge. Don't judge america by it's government judge it by it's actions. There's a lot of good things that americans do to help other americans and other countries. You will always have the fringe groups on both sides, but if life is a bell curve most people fall in the middle and not in the extremes, the reason the extremes get heard is b/c they say shocking extreme things.
I agree that it can't be judged like that, but lately with rising international tensions, the government and a large portion of the population seem to think that there's a huge threat that has to be destroyed.
From the outside in, it appears almost insane. Of course everyone in america doesn't share a paranoid view of the world and there's an even bigger majority that hold reason. But large religious groups hold a lot of sway too, and they pose a threat to freedom more than anything else. Which brings me back to my main point, America could be its own worst enemy.
"Hallowed are the Ori"
http://www.freewebs.com/alnkirk - it ain't shabby!
Unfortunately, I'm at work and can't access Youtube here, but there was a comment to a Ron Paul video with a link to what he said. I can try to find it later when I get home.
EDIT - This is the best I can do at the moment.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.
https://admin3.getactive.com/img/an2/custom_images/nbjcoalition/RP4.jpg
Thanks for the response. Though I tend to align myself with the statement from the first response "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life." And that is something that people always argue and tend to align with based on their religious view.
I see where he's coming from on the second, i think he could have phrased it much better but from the bolded part I think he may be implying that founding fathers wanted to make sure teh govt didn't get overbearing, but I can easily see how it could be taken a different way. I don't know which way he meant.
that has always sounded extremely stupid to me.
I agree that he could have meant it in a different way. I can't find the original link, but he went into a little more detail about it. Either way, his views on religion and abortion will keep me from voting for him. Too bad because I agree with him on a lot of other things.