Thanks, Jessica, for passing this on. I agree with much of what Ron Paul stands for, especially pro-life and opposition to the Iraq war, although my personal favorite presidential candidate is "Average Joe" Schriner.

by Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 9:20:14 AM

  (0+)

Religion and politics, like oil and water, in my opinion do NOT mix.

I am a firm believer in the absolute separation of church and state.  I find the pandering to the religious extremist to be disgusting.

 Your religion, in your church, in your home, but under no circumstances, in the public square.

The historical (religious) revisionist are putting forth that the US is a "christian" nation.  The opposite was true and the intent of the founding fathers.  There is no mention of "god", instead it says 'creator'.  Most of the founding fathers were deist or atheist, not christian.  As was the case of the first settlers, it was state sponsored religion they were running away from. 

by kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 9:20:15 AM

  (0+)

Excerpt from a letter Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence, and third President of the Country) wrote to the Reverend Samuel Miller on January 23, 1808, in response to Miller's proposal that he "recommend" a national day of fasting and prayer:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises...Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. ...

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

However, during the Costitutional Convention, the delegates prayed EVERY DAY that they met...

"Washington's Prayer." In it, he asked God to: "dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."

 Since prayer gave us the separation of church and state, maybe we should think about why that happened, rather than coming up with assumptions put forth by people who really have no clue what they are talking about. 

I am not advocating a church run government...  I am just pointing out that the statements you made are incorrect, and have been proven by the first congress as to be flat out wrong.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 9:49:28 AM

  (0+)

"I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned. " None of the front runners can make this statement... our Preznit could never make this statement... In fact I dare say that Dr Paul is unique in the fact that he is not thirsty for power... So many people look at candidates with dramatically different views and think of any possible reason not to vote for that candidate.. Rather, these people will vote for a republican or a democrat suggesting "the lesser of two evils" Meanwhile these same people complain about how nothing is changing in the US.. Nothing is improving, in the US... We spend hundreds of BILLIONS over seas, yet out own infrastructure is falling apart... Oh there are reasons why, that have nothing to do with money, but that goes to the second point, NOTHING IS IMPROVING! Well, here is what we have to look forward to, with a Ron Paul Presidency... CONgress will continue to act like a bunch of third graders, That is the culture we have enabled to embed itself, in the DC Beltway. In fact, that same culture has been responsible for keeping candidates, who are not Democrat or Republican, OFF OF THE BALLOT! (How dare anyone with a fresh idea run against the establishment? eh?) Ron Paul, if elected, will serve to really illustrate just how childish the establishment is.. Maybe after his term, the US will realize that it has been so conned by the republicans and the democrats, that those parties will lose their grip on power.. One can DREAM, right? Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 9:21:34 AM

  (0+)

to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty." Just as we told the Native Americans when we "founded" this country and stole their land, right?

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 918 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 9:34:51 AM

  (0+)

Dan, Respectfully, I understand what Dr, Paul is saying and cz85b Could you elborate, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:06:27 AM

  (0+)

There were several different points in my piece..  which did you want me to elaborate on?

Steve

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:47:33 AM

  (0+)

Why must all these political figures continue to push their faith in our face? He accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, great, does he want a brownie?  Why must we continue to use fear tactics, religion and ones own personal agenda to recruit votes.  I am sick and tired of these religious extremists and their views.  Just because he claims to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior does that make him a suitable candidate or a good person for that matter?  I could accept Santa Clause as my lord and savior as he dashes through our roofs during the holidays does that make me a saint?  Please, I can't take it any longer, is it me, or are we not over these dramatic people and their God?

Great believe what you want, free will allows you to do that and living in this country, but stop pushing, Allah, Jehovah or what ever you want to call your boogie man, on me.  Stop claiming you know what God wants or one of his son's (jesus) yes, one of his, for I consider all of us sons and daughters of God, Jesus was no more privileged than we.

Stop claiming to be so righteous and know it all,  after all, you wouldn't have the first clue to what a higher power wants.  Just stick to trying to straighten the mess we are in and leave God out of it.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:20:57 AM

  (0+)

You are suggesting that BECAUSE he comes out and says "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" he can not have your vote?

 What if the other candidate comes out and says  I am going to invade a soveriegn nation with nuclear capabilities..  Are you going to vote for him because he did NOT come out and say that he accepted Jesus Christ yadda yadda yadda??

 Why do people come out and become so afraid of someone's religion?  I don't care if he is a Buddhist, he says the right things about LIBERTY!  He says the right things about BIG GOVERNMENT....  and he is DEFINITELY SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS ABOUT FAILED GOVERNMENT POLICY, which is way more than any of the other candidates!

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:54:41 AM

  (0+)

Because it shouldn't matter what their religion is, I don't care and I don't want to know. I don't care who you sleep with or what you do aside from your job, as long as you get the job done.  Religion should not be a factor in politics or in peoples life.  That should be a private matter between who you believe in and you.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 3:14:43 PM

  (0+)

I agree emphatically with that point, but by the same token, if someone does say that he has religion, I don't hold it against him or her either..

Instead, I look at the issues that are important...  

freedom of Speech, for me, is very important!  LOL

 Steve

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:05:28 PM

  (0+)

When a person has to reveal his or her religion and makes it a point to say that he is a man of God, and Jesus Christ is is Lord and Savior, I have many reasons to doubt their sincerity, especially in politics.  Just because you are a Christian does not give you any special privileges or a get out of jail card.  There has been too many people who in the name of God have committed crimes and because of their beliefs are known to be judgemental and non flexible.  I much rather have an Atheist run this country than a religious man.  My views, not yours I know.  But at least the atheist will be fair and not be swayed by his religious roots.  Religion is responsible for many terrible things, and many who claim to be a soldier of God have been known to take part of massive destruction.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:17:10 PM

  (0+)

a person's faith does not disqualify him/her..  If it did, we would not have had

George Washington 1789-97
John Adams 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson 1801-09
James Madison 1809-17
James Monroe 1817-25
John Quincy Adams 1825-29
Andrew Jackson 1829-37
Martin Van Buren 1837-41
William Henry Harrison 1841
John Tyler 1841-45
James Polk 1845-49
Zachary Taylor 1849-50
Millard Fillmore 1850-53
Franklin Pierce 1853-57
James Buchanan 1857-61

ETC..... 

Some were good, some were bad... we never used a religion litmus test on any of them..  NOT EVEN JFK, that Catholic from MA....

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:03:59 PM

  (0+)

Actually, you've got it all wrong... Ron Paul stated at the beginning of this "Statement of Faith" that he didn't feel comfortable discussing his religion, especially during election time b/c he didn't want to have people react the way you are reacting.

I re-posted this document simply because I wanted those who were interested in these subjects to have the opportunity to read what Ron Paul wrote. I had no anticipation that it would cause people to vent & slander Christians as a whole.  

I apologize on behalf of all Christians for not being perfect as everyone expects us to be. Yes, there are many people who claim to be Christians out there. However, the only way you can know for certain that a person is a true follower of Christ is by their actions.

Supreme Example: George W. Bush 

I, along with many Americans voted for Bush because he claimed to be a Christian, threw Scripture into just about every speech and identified himself as Pro-Life. Unfortunately, I now realize that these were probably just a bunch of words because many of his actions are FAR FAR from being Christian! I feel betrayed that Bush has allowed all of these troops to die... for an unneccesary war... because he has somehow been swept away by this thirst for Oil that every President seems to have either before or after he takes office.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is different. He is not wearing religion on his sleeve in any way. In fact, I've been following his campaign for several months now & had never even heard him mention anything related to religion until I stumbled upon this document! I'm sure he only wrote this statement of faith because it became clear that he needed to do more than mention he believed in a Creator God.

Most religions believe in some sort of creator, so it was necessary for RP to say which one he believed in. I'm sure he would have been content to keep his thoughts to himself. However, when you are running for office & people keep asking you what your religious beliefs are, you have to give them an honest answer.

Because of what happened with Bush, I was leery of trusting anybody claiming to be anything again. Then I heard about Ron Paul & saw that his ideals and voting record are right in line with what I believe as a Christian.

So, I'm not voting for Ron Paul because he claims to be a Christian. I am voting for him because he is a humble man with a simple and lifechanging message that could change the world and our country for the better. He is the only person running for President who wants to limit government as much as possible & restore personal liberty to everyone regardless of race, color, religion, creed or lifestyle. He is the very last person who would impose his own beliefs onto others... so please give him a chance to perhaps win your favor. Thanks.

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:24:03 PM

  (0+)

is based in religion, and not in libertarianism and personal liberty.

When asked about his religion he could just as well have said it was his own affair and had nothing to do with politics, which could have been a perfectly honest answer -- but he chose not to say that. He speaks out two sides of his mouth.

If you voted for Bush because you believed what he said about being a Christian then you obviously did not do the research about his abilities as a leader, and was simply taken in by his claims. More importantly, we we supposed to be electing a president for all the people, not a pastor, rabbi, mullah or pope. That's the whole point of the idea of a separating wall between religion and state, and the whole point of there not supposing to be a religious test for a politician -- pro or con -- and that's a principle you ignored in your voting. You voted for becasue you though he was a Christian -- that's a vote for theocracy, and not at all what America was supposed to be about.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:20:39 PM

  (0+)

Is it wrong that Ron Paul bases his Pro-Life stance on his personal religious beliefs? Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about?

Freedom of Religion is not about a WALL between religion and state. If you do your research, you will find that it was intended to protect RELIGION from GOVERNMENT… not GOVERNMENT from RELIGION.

You are right… I blindly followed Bush & was too lazy to research his abilities as a leader. Can I not learn from my mistakes? And anyways, isn’t it my right to vote for whomever I wish for whatever reasons I wish?

I think it is asinine to assume that religious people vote for other people of their religion anticipating that he/she will act as a pastor/rabbi/mullah/pope/whatever. I didn’t expect Bush to lead us in spiritual matters. I expected him to have the character of a person who follows the teachings of Christ.

I was wrong to have this expectation for a person whom I did not research extensively. However, there is nothing wrong with desiring to have the leader of our nation emulate a man (Jesus) who has held great respect among all mankind for over 2,000 years.  

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 2:00:54 PM

  (0+)

"Is it wrong that Ron Paul bases his Pro-Life stance on his personal religious beliefs? Isn’t that what freedom of religion is all about?"

His stance is not just about him, but the legislation he introduces to control everyone. I don't care what his religion is if he keeps it to himself, but when he star6ts messing with the law that's out of bounds -- then he is messing with everyone according to his religious beliefs, and that theocratic tyranny.

"Freedom of Religion is not about a WALL between religion and state. If you do your research, you will find that it was intended to protect RELIGION from GOVERNMENT… not GOVERNMENT from RELIGION."

I have researched it, and you are wrong. Religion is not supposed to be part of government.

"I didn’t expect Bush to lead us in spiritual matters. I expected him to have the character of a person who follows the teachings of Christ."

The first error is to think that Christians have any better sense of morality or character than anyone else. Historically that's nonsense, and it's nonsense today. Secondly, there was more than enough indication that he would mix his religious ideas (or what he said they were) with the governmental decisions he made. People who actually try to follow the morality and principles of their religion rarely shout so much about. Even Jesus is said to have recognized this:

KJV Matthew:

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Bush has always been the essence of the hypocrite and deceiver (which I realized the first time I ever saw him -- he made my skin crawl).

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 2:32:54 PM

  (0+)

As you were wrong to expect greatness from one man ( Bush ), you are wrong to expect that history holds the answers.  Jesus was no more son of God than you and I are.  He was a kind and wise man, but so are many that walk this earth.  Learn to rely on yourself for the answers and see the idolizing someone who once was considered deviant and put to death, later was made a martyr by mankind and idolized.  It is human nature to do what we have done with beliefs and religion. 

It is too much to ask for one to be accountable for oneself and learn that there is no heaven or hell, no after life, this is all we got, be accountable and live on.

Fairy tales are soothing, and religion a much need support for the weak minded.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 6:19:02 PM

  (0+)

You don't know Ron from a hole in the wall.  Political candidates will wind and dine you and yes you to death.  I feel their is no need to mention what religion you are in politics, it shouldn't matter. The two should be separated at all times.  It shouldn't be anyone's business who you pray to or if you pray at all.

We don't ask our political candidates what cologne they use, what brand of toilet paper sits on their toilet roll, or who they fancy in the bedroom.  There are too many candidates and political heads who claim to be one thing and do another, so who cares is my answer.  Show me what you can do, not what bible you read or who you claim to believe in.  Politics and religion should not mingle.

On another note, I respect every ones religion, however, I am tired about hearing who is buddhist or who is Christian.  Religion has created many problems in our world, and I think it is time for it to be set aside and made a private matter.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 3:23:48 PM

  (0+)

You don't know Ron from a hole in the wall.

Ron Paul has, and continues to make his opinions well known.  He is known, in the beltway, as Dr. NO, because he will not sign on to any legislation that goes against the Constitution, and since there have been, and are plenty of bills that go contrary to the Constitution, he says "NO" quite often! 

If you bother to read his lengthy record, you would not have made the statement that I have quoted at the top..

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:09:22 PM

  (0+)

Wait until they get into office then make those claims.  Bush made many promises and said Jesus was his lord and savior, look what he has done.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:20:17 PM

  (0+)

Bush had a track record of FAILURE, from business to Baseball...  Yet people thought he would succeed in the White House...

All of the candidates running for president have one thing in common..  they have ALL signed on to failed unconstitutional policy....  YET, you would vote for them over Ron Paul? 

Ron Paul has done EXACTLY what he has said he would do since he arrived in DC...  YET, somehow you think he will change once he gets into the white house???

The Citizens for tax freedom in Iowa, or whatever they call themselves, had a debate a while back.. they did not invite Ron Paul...  YET, he was the ONLY candidate on the republican side who was in favor of reducing taxes! 

 How Ironic is that? Here in PA, a Libertarian was running for treasurer...  She was disqualified  due to a "lack of experience" yet she was the only candidate with any kind of financial background.. 

Now, you want discount Ron Paul because you think he will change. but you are willing to elect the others because???

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:27:00 PM

  (0+)

http://beyondbelief2006.org/   

http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/ 10 sessions -- about 15 hours from top scientists.

Paul says "I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God." Ron Paul is delusional. If that insults anyone, then that's the way the cookie crumbles, but that's the truth.

It's sure as hell NOT what I know, and I resent all to hell Paul speaking for what *I* and others know and trying to cut off any discussion about it by saying that. Or is he speaking only to Christians here (on a 'Christians for Paul web site)? And not to every American? But then, what makes him think that even all Christians "know" that freedom comes from God? In any case, if Paul "knows" that, and " freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do." then he may be suited as a minister or priest, but certainly not as a publich politician. He expresses distast for pandering to Christians and yet does exactly that.

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life." So much for libertarianism! Let people do what they want unless HIS religious beliefs say no.

He says "I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty". This is completely wrong! The unborn never had such constitutional rights, and there is nothing to be restored. There is nowhere in the constitution that this is said -- and yet Paul purports to be a libertarian and support the constitution -- and he want to be president and swear to uphold the constitution.

Wonderful -- just what we need -- another damned high priest who tries to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else. Another crazy man running the country. No -- I don't think so!! If the Christians can't keep their religions to themselves they should just go off somewhere and start their own country and leave the rest of us alone. Theocracy stinks!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:23:53 AM

  (0+)

"Paul says "I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God." Ron Paul is delusional."

 OK, Where do our RIGHTS come from?  The government? They sure have been taking them away...   Regardless of what your opinion of GOD happens to be, the Point in that statement is that he does not believe the government has the right to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS FROM PEOPLE...

 Now, if you believe that government SHOULD be taking people's rights away, then you are obviously living in the wrong country.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:00:41 AM

  (0+)

Rights come from people willing to demand them, and fight for them if necessary.

You say "he does not believe the government has the right to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS FROM PEOPLE" and yet right there Paul says he is willing to let the government take away the right of women to control their own bodies. He obviously thinks HIS beliefs, rooted in HIS religion, should trump women's rights, and in this case he ignores the constitution, which gives absolutely NO rights to a fetus.

Additionally, the idea anyone NEEDS a personal saviour is in itself delusional -- it makes a nice story with some mythical and artistic merit, but to think this is literally true, with the rooted assumptions of 'original sin' and the ancient mythologies concerning a Messiah -- in both aspects of scapegoat and divinely directed king -- show not just ignorance about the origins of the myth but serious flaws in his critical thinking and ability to maintain intellectual integrity -- the same problem he has with talking about restoring rights which never existed in the first place and yet talking about the constitution as if was to be the source of what he says -- along with what Jesus is supposed to have, however he might interpret that.

What we have here is a man who can get by as a walking-around ordinary guy but hardly the sort of intellect needed for a president.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:46:23 AM

  (0+)

you would allow the Dems and Repubs (By Dems and Repubs, I am referring to the other candidates...) to take away your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, your right against illegal search and seizure?  (Dems already stated that they thought the wiretaps were a good idea...  )  They really don't have any issue with US Citizens being declared enemy combatants and held WITHOUT CHARGE, for YEARS, being denied the right to DUE PROCESS...  How bout your rights to own private property?  Dems and Repubs seem to think that it is good to use Emeninant Domain to increase the TAX BASE...  you think that is good?

So far, all of the other candidates have taken special effort to rip apart every single Amendment in the Bill of Rights, except for stationing troops in our homes!

 MEANWHILE, You go after Dr Paul on his opinion about abortion, because that is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than our freedom of speech... etc...  You really want to sit there and accuse me of practicing fuzzy thinking???  

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:09:57 PM

  (0+)

You try to present me with a false choice. Would you ask if I preferred to be eat by a lion, a snake, or wolf? The answer, of course, is none of the above, and if any tried to eat me I would fight to the death.

If a man -- Paul -- does not understand the basic principles of democracy, the constitution, and individual liberty, then there is no reason to trust him with the sort of power a president has. He purports to support the constitution and then turns around and subverts at his convenience, same as Bush does -- they just happen to have conveniences. The lot of them can go to blazes. I won't vote for any of them.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:27:39 PM

  (0+)

Over half of the country believes that LIFE begins at conception...  Hence a fetus is a human being...

So you believe that all of your other rights should be forfit in favor of keeping a man who believes the same way as over half of the nation on the subject of abortion...

 You single issue people are very annoying, because you WOULD say that you would rather be eaten by a lion or a bear, because the way to not be eaten at all is covered with a little poison ivy....

That, my friend, is true genius....

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:43:36 PM

  (0+)

"Over half of the country believes that LIFE begins at conception...  Hence a fetus is a human being..."

Half the country believes in creationism -- which is wrong. Half the people thought Bush would make a good president, and most thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq. How many people believe something has little or nothing to do with what is true. That's very sloppy thinking.

In fact, life does not begin with conception -- the egg and the sperm are very much alive. Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

A june bug is life -- but a june bug is not a human being. Your logic is absurd.

"So you believe that all of your other rights should be forfit in favor of keeping a man who believes the same way as over half of the nation on the subject of abortion..."

I never said that, and no, that's not at all what I believe. I don't know who you BELIEVE you are responding to, but it sure isn't me. You are apparantly making things up in your mind instead of reading what I have written.

"You single issue people are very annoying, because you WOULD say that you would rather be eaten by a lion or a bear, because the way to not be eaten at all is covered with a little poison ivy...."

That, my friend, is true genius...."

I'm not a 'single issue' person, and you have NO IDEA what I would say -- so don't you DARE try to speak for me!! What ARROGANCE you have!

And don't get snotty or sarcastic with me either. I now have some reason to think you would not know 'genius' if one bit you on the bottom.

(Yes -- arrogance -- it makes me wonder if you are Christian... I'm fed up with Christian arrogance.)

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 2:11:51 PM

  (0+)

You who suggests that half the country, who believes in something other than what you believe, in is stupid, state that I am arrogant and snotty?  Oh PLEASE!

As it happens, I was at a DC Women's Right's March in 2004. Were  You?

My personal belief is this...  

Life begins at conception. 

HOWEVER... 

The Government has no business making decisions regarding abortion either way.

We have pretty close to a 50-50 split, I don't want to see government dollars funding abortion, nor do I want government to step in and stop abortions.  There are reasons pro and there are reasons against I am not someone who will sit and judge who is wrong regarding this issue...  Every woman I have ever met who made that choice said that it was the worst of times, for her, and it was the worst decision she every had to make..  That is to a woman!  No woman is happy after... No woman was happy before..  it sucks all around.  Who are we to judge that?

Now, I WILL sit and judge who is making ludicrous remarks...  If you want to call me "snotty" by suggesting that you really are looking through the most myopic of lenses, then MAY I BE THE SNOTTIEST PERSON YOU HAVE EVER MET.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 2:46:45 PM

  (0+)

and I have other things to do, so I'll try to leave it at this:

you say "The Government has no business making decisions regarding abortion either way." and yet Paul said "I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."

Paul would let government (state government) make abortion illegal -- just the opposite of what you just said you think. You really do need to read what is actually written. He said he WILL take rights away from people, and has already tried to do so, as he states above (HR 300). Why don't you 'believe' him when he says that?

As for what I SAID it was NOT "You who suggests that half the country, who believes in something other than what you believe, in is stupid"; what I SAID is "Half the country believes in creationism -- which is wrong. Half the people thought Bush would make a good president, and most thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq. How many people believe something has little or nothing to do with what is true. That's very sloppy thinking." If you can't tell the difference between what I said and what you apparantly think I said then there is no point in continuing this anyway (snotty "Genius")!

Bandwagon Fallacy

Etymology:
The name "bandwagon fallacy" comes from the phrase "jump on the bandwagon" or "climb on the bandwagon", a bandwagon being a wagon big enough to hold a band of musicians. In past political campaigns, candidates would ride a bandwagon through town, and people would show support for the candidate by climbing aboard the wagon. The phrase has come to refer to joining a cause because of its popularity.

Alias:
Appeal to Popularity
Argument by Consensus
Argumentum ad Populum
Authority of the Many
Type: Red Herring

Form:
Idea I is popular.
Therefore, I is correct.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 3:12:03 PM

  (0+)

Paul would let government (state government) make abortion illegal

 OK, Since the FOUNDERS created amendment number 10, then it does not matter WHAT YOU think the individual states should or should not do, it is up to the people in the states.

 Unless, you don't think the founders were in their right mind when they dared suggest that if something was not mentioned in the constitution, it was up to the individual states, OR THE PEOPLE, to take control of it..  Have I got that right?

You state that you have better things to do, but reality is simply this..  you can't argue against my point, so you are getting frustrated...  TOUGH!  I am here, and there is a VERY IMPORTANT Document that backs up what I am saying.  So, either get enough of the US to back your stance, or deal with it...

Ron Paul is a Libertarian.  His pro-life stance is actually STILL a Libertarian stance.  I don't necessarily agree with his point of view, but I sure as hell agree with him on a lot of other little details, Like the fact that he did not sign legislation abridging our freedom of political speech!

  You want someone in the WHITE HOUSE who carries that viewpoint? Guess What?? We ALREADY DO, and it SUCKS... you want change vote for someone other than the established choices...  you want to speak intelligently, then do so, but do not condemn someone due to his stand on ONE SINGLE ISSUE...  Yeah, back to that..  Since you don't have any other complaints other than his stand on abortion, I see you as a SINGLE ISSUE person living in that tunnel...

 Well, good luck finding happiness with your democrat...

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:23:04 PM

  (0+)

what I SAID is "Half the country believes in creationism -- which is wrong

Are you sure?  do you have evidence?  or are you accepting it on FAITH?  It seems, to me, that you are given that Leaky family has been searching, for proof, for CENTURIES, and has not found any evidence, WHATSOEVER, to back up the THEORY of evolution..  Yet you state that creationism is wrong..  Well, Creationism, by any standard, is no less wrong than evolution, at this particular stage, and unless that changes, don't use it to butress a weak argument, because it just makes your argument look weaker...

Could I suggest that you actually read the TEXT of HR 300?  I'd really love to know why you brought it up, because it is obvious, to anyone who reads your post that you have no clue what is in HR 300 

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:51:40 PM

  (0+)

Becasue Ron Paul brought it up:  "I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."

Do you imagine that Paul doesn't know the intent of the bill which he brags about being the prime sponsor of?

You also imagine I support the Democrats."Well, good luck finding happiness with your democrat...". That's ludicrous. Just looking at my posts from the last few days is evidence of how silly that assertion is.

You have a very active imagination,

You imagine I was lying when I said I had other things to do "You state that you have better things to do, but reality is simply this..  you can't argue against my point, so you are getting frustrated...  TOUGH! " But I did among them downloading over 100 news articles), and still do (I'm only about half-way through archiving news for the day -- and have things besides that).

But no, arguing with you and your imagination is not a high priority. You don't read what is said except to feed your own delusional preconception of reality. And if you think I'm going to waste time to even entertain the delusion that creationism is based on any evidence or that evolution isn't then you obviously have no idea of how tired I am with silly games. Arument is one thing, but mere contradiction is down the hall, and I don't go there.

"OK, Since the FOUNDERS created amendment number 10, then it does not matter WHAT YOU think the individual states should or should not do, it is up to the people in the states."    And once again you presume to TELL me what I think. And, wonder of wonders, try to invoke the 10th amendment to justify outlawing women's right to determine what to do with their own bodies? You refuse to face the contradiction between saying you think women should have choice -- excpet if the state tells them they don't? What you write is ridiculous, apparaently originating from your own little world, and having nothing to do with I have written -- or with what Paul or other libertarians have, for that matter.

This is a waste of time.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:56:14 PM

  (0+)

You who obviously have not read the text of HR 300.... 

You who don't want the states to be able to make up their own minds...  I am putting thoughts in your head?  Have you READ the constitution?  

You could not have read it and still come back to say that I am putting thoughts in your head or words in your mouth...  You, sir, are the one who is calling other people names... 

You are right, this is a waste of time... you are a one issue person who WILL get a Democrat...  Good luck with that... Though it really doesn't matter, because the republicans are the same animal...  just look at the interaction between the white house and CONgress for the past 7 years....

In Ron Paul you have the ONLY honest man running for President...  This is why I support him... 

You, on the other hand you are tearing at him because he, believes something different than you..  Meanwhile the other candidates are saying what you want to hear, so you are fine with that.. 

Why don't you read the text of the bills they sign before you start calling people delusional?

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 7:36:27 AM

  (0+)

It is been my experience that abortion opponents are not intellectually honest and there are many questions which would expose them, so the vast majority of them refuse to answer.

Here's one:

If you were inside a burning building and you had 200 fertilized eggs in a petri dish in one corner of the room and a living & breathing 3 year old in the other corner, but you only had time to grab one or the other, which do you choose?

Do you dare to answer?

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:47:44 AM

  (0+)

One does what one can.  Save all possible, and pray for the rest.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:13:35 PM

  (0+)

Now that's a hoot, I will pray for you they say.  Words thrown at the wind, what meaning does it have? Billions of people in the world all praying for their needs.  Do you actually think there is someone listening? Generation after generation of brain wash has made you and others like you believe that prayer works. It is your own mind and powers that brings forth the action, not some deity at the other end granting you your desires.

 People need to take responsibility for their actions and reactions and stop living in fairy land. It might comfort you to think their is someone listening, and that is fine, I won't take that away from you, but please spare me the drama and story. I am the master of my universe and my destiny, I and only I can create the events that surround me, not some mystical deity.

Religion is personal or the lack thereof, it doesnt belong in politics and it should not be used to judge others.  We are all entitled to our beliefs, once your beliefs start to interfere with other peoples lives then it becomes a problem.  You don't have to a get an abortion, or have sex with anyone of the same sex, you don't have to anything you do not want. That is your choice as is your religion, respect other peoples views and choices, and if there is a God, it will deal with each and everyone one of us on judgement day.  In the meantime, all you can do is love and be loved.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 4:32:49 PM

  (0+)

So I guess when a family member, of yours, dies, they are not remembered in some sort of a send off wish? 

I'm glad I am not in your family....

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:02:21 PM

  (0+)

Is that going to bring them back? Like I said, some people find great comfort in prayer due to lack of security, fear, the need to feel that there is something greater than them.  All good, I am quite confident in my abilities and fear not what lies ahead, instead every challenge I face is welcomed.  I enjoy my family as they are alive and when they are gone I hope they enter a new dimension where they will encounter new beginnings.  The spirit lives on forever, like energy it has no ending. Why should I worry, the universe takes care of it's own.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:26:19 PM

  (0+)

did I miss it, or is Steve imagining ("guessing") things about what you wrote too and what you think, as he has with what me? Is he imagining that there is no such thing as a secular funeral?

Ah, yes -- imagining things and taking them as true -- a very "religious" sort of thinking that... but it does make it easier to ahve opinion when you don't need any factual evidence.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 7:14:08 PM

  (0+)

I guess I imagined that...  Since I can see it in print, maybe I DID NOT imagine that...

 So if someone derides prayer for the dead, is it that unreasonable that he or she would deride any send off for the dead?  Have you thought about your statements before you, out of left field, accuse someone of being religious? Now who has an active imagination?

Earlier, on this board, someone suggested that I wanted the church to run the nation...  Ummmm  not only was that off base, but that someone completely ignored my post naming some of our presidents who believed in God... who were christians, who went to church on sunday.....  George Washington would not have been our president if we did not hire christians...  Oh I won't bother to repeat myself other than to say simply this...  If you want to hold someone's religion against him/her, then you will be against 90+% of the population of the world....

How does it feel to be against that many people?  Just curious... 

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 8:06:06 AM

  (0+)

I am me and not you, I care not what others do or think. I have my own mind and the ability to create my own thought process.  Religion is for the weak and the fearful. So you ask how does it feel, it feels create.  It let's me know how much more intelligent and powerful I am that I am not governed by fear or peer pressure.

That I have figured out what most have not.  That I have gone beyond kindergarten where every child follows the leader and wants what the others have.  I am free from bonds and chains, are you?

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 9:41:33 AM

  (0+)

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. That was nothing other than an emotionally loaded statement. What sort of intelligence is your comment based on?

Abortion does more than kill a human being. It leaves the mother of a dead baby wounded both physically & mentally... largely because our society preaches that this living being inside of her can be simply written off as an inconvenience. Unfortunately, nobody tells them the statistics of how this action will affect them for the rest of their lives.

If we value women so much (as we should)... why don't we tell them of the physical and emotional consequences they will live with for the rest of their lives? For example, did you know that women who have an abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer? Check out the following website: www.abortionbreastcancer.com

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:20:46 PM

  (0+)

The science isn't there for that assertion about cancer: BBC

Abortion does not kill a human being, but an embryo -- not the same thing.

Of course abortion is often damaging to a woman, but so is an unwanted birth -- which you choose to ignore. Society does not teach an unwanted pregnance as simply an inconvenience -- virtually everyone acknowledges it as a difficult situation no matter which choice is made.  If abortion is not legal then horrors ensue, both for women force to get an abortion illegally, or to children who cannot be properly cared for and wanted -- and that's shown to be true by what has happened when that was the case.

You have already decided on your belief and then try to fit all the inforation to that belief, and that's precisely what is wrong with belief. But facts matter, and rationality is ignored at our peril. I don't want people who can't think rationally to be in power.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:43:35 PM

  (0+)

There are so many ways to see things, we each have our angle and frame of mind.  You consider abortion a bad thing.  Yet what happens when nature decides to terminate a pregnancy, what happens when the situation arises that this child would be better off not being born.  Are you not aware of the over population, the many families on welfare and food stamps who cannot afford to live?  Do you realize that until that fetus has actually passed the birth canal and breathed on it's own, it is not considered alive? 

Over dramatizing is a typical religious characteristics, as the Muslims blow up innocent people to achieve there triumph in obtaining 70 virgins.  As the Christians kill abortion doctors to prevent a so call murder.  How many deaths do their have to be in the name of religion or God?  Yet we freely send our troops to get slaughtered all for oil.  We need to reflect and try to get our issues in order.

A woman no more gets cancer from having an abortion than one who has never had one.  Cancers is abnormal cell growth, it doesnt have a mind or judges and finds ways to vindicate those that have done something wrong.  It's like saying Gays diserve to have Aids.  I have come to the conclusion that there is a gene in certain individuals that makes you a religious extremists. That you run your lives on fear, and need to be live within the box in order to feel comfort.  I say go ahead, do what you need to do, but leave us all alone.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 4:47:27 PM

  (0+)

It absolutely is not a silly question, it is a reasonable question based upon your premise that a fertilized embryo is equivalent to a walking and talking human being. Additionally, half or more of the country would agree with the point that this question dares you to answer, and if you are going to dismiss that many of us, then not only do you lack intellectual honesty, but you lack fairness and respect as well.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:41:05 PM

  (0+)

If you say that there is only time to save one or the other, Then you have to save one..  Period end of story... 

What was your point, exactly?   Are you suggesting that people could be hypocritycal if they do not save the embryos over the baby?  or are you suggesting that someone would be evil for saving the embryos over the baby?

do you DARE to answer THAT?

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:33:20 PM

  (0+)

You save the baby. A baby IS a human being, fertilized eggs are just potential human beings who may well never make it as far as birth (most probably won't if they are sitting in a dish). Even fertiized within the body of a woman have a good chance of never implanting or proceeding to birth -- somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 half fertilized eggs never make as far as birth. And a fertilized agg is just one cell -- how can that be compared to a baby?

Babies are persons under the constitution and have the rights of a person; eggs have no such rights.

The answer SHOULD be obvious.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 1:58:02 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is usually well-principled in his Jeffersonian opposition to government overstepping its proper authority.  It's truly a shame that in this instance, he's letting his personal religious views - based in blind faith, NOT evidence-based, and NOT relevant to our secular government - overrule his usual good judgment, leading to his support for government interference in what should be a personal decision.

by Ray Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 4:13:54 PM

  (0+)

BUT...  The founders, started every day at the Constitutional convention with a prayer... 

Because someone has religion does not disqualify him/her from anything...  the first amendment was created because of the church of england, not because some church was taking over the government..  I have a quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, take a look..

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 5:26:58 PM

  (0+)

You claim that religion should play a role in politics.  So wish religion should be the religion of the country? This is contra productive for a country and not fair for those with different belief system. 

As they make a person swear in our court system with the bible, do they not think that maybe one is not a believer in the bible and could be lying through their teeth.  What if you are a believer in the Koran, or any other form of rule book, what if you prayed to saints and not God?  You see it gets too complicated and it is unjust.  Religion, as I said before has no role in our country or politics.  Too many different belief systems, Christianity is not the chosen one or the only one, therefore, let's omit them all. The true Americans were the native Indians, and they have their own belief system, which they did not force upon us.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:36:23 PM

  (0+)

The highest power referred to in the Constitution is "We the people."  Our non-Christian, secular government was confirmed in the Treaty with Tripoli, written at the end of Washington's second term in 1796, and passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by President Adams in 1797.  It contains the following passage:  "Article 11:  As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . "  Interestingly enough, there's no evidence that any of the politicians who supported this statement encountered any political fallout; Even in the context of the late 1700's, the vast majority of Americans knew, and accepted, that the United States had a secular government.

Of course, neither Jefferson, nor Washington, nor Adams, nor most of the founding fathers were Christians.  Those who think the United States was founded as a Christian Nation are, simply, historically mistaken, and should review some historical texts.  I'd suggest starting with Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason."

 Ron Paul, of all people, should know better than to use his personal Christian beliefs to support an unwarranted expansion of government power over individuals.

by Ray Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:53:18 PM

  (0+)

then why is airing them as part of his political campaigning? Doesn't sound personal to me. It sounds like pandering!

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 6:58:52 PM

  (0+)

I second that... spoken with truth....

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 1:14:20 PM

  (0+)

I was guilty of an unclear message cz85b. I understood what you said, I did not understand what DAN said meant.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 8, 2007 at 8:40:57 PM

  (0+)

I think I like these boards better than the ones I usually post on..  :-)

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 7:11:22 AM

  (0+)

  "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
    Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 9:21:16 AM

  (0+)

Awesome Quote... Thank you!

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 12:08:16 PM

  (0+)

Either you will be blasted for being a religious zelot, or your post will simply be ignored by someone who will come out and say that Jefferson did not believe in God...  How SAD is that?

Benjamin Franklin once stated: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain STUPID."  

I have witnessed people, on this very board, working VERY HARD....

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 12:11:55 PM

  (0+)

My stance against is has nothing to do with religion, I don't give a freep if the embryo or the fetus does or does not have a soul, it is a human being in the making. Abortion is taking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness away from a being in the making, that is totalitarian. "A right to do with her body..." A fetus is not "her body" it is the body of the fetus and every bit as much the father's child, as the mother's. How can you justify such cruelty and then whine about torture? Being against the war because of the cruelty and killing and at the same time favoring any of the following is hypocritical: Abortion, torture, Capital Punishment, Preemptive war. Who could trust a person who would destroy or approve the destruction of a helpless human in the making?

Abortionists are the cause of this war and in addition to the 775,000 deaths and 1,100,000,000 casualties for their selfish adherence to the evil of abortion. A democrat would have been elected if not for that issue which scared off millions of honest hard working people who know abortion for what it is, a stupid evil aimed at the lower classes and minorities so their population will stay low, bigotry and Baby-in-the-making murder. Nice thing to be labeled as. Now we have Bush because out of conscience some voted the other way and some couldn't decide. They hated Bush but didn't want to vote in abortion because it is WRONG. How can any human hold a baby in it's arms and then want to kill someone else's or their own? I am sorry but such a thing is despicable.

Abortionists are the cause of the loss of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the war. wake up, I voted democratic despite the abortion issue, but this time I vote for the Independent or for Ron Paul, who is against every form of death-dealing, and if there are none I'll do a write-in. I am through supporting a double-crossing party which doesn't do what we asked and into the bargain wants to destroy unborn Humans.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 11:39:40 AM

  (0+)

How can you justify such cruelty and then whine about torture?

They don't... they simply use words like fetus and suggest that a fetus is meaningless...  OR, when faced with the superior argument, they ignore your point, call you names, and then spout off whatever their rehearsed talking points for the moment happen to be.

You know where I stand on the issue, so I won't bother to re-state any of that, but understand that the people who are pro-abortion (because that is the only "choice" they are advocating whenthey say "pro choice") see that your opinion varies even a hair's bredth away from theirs, you will be crucified as an ignorant bigot

 the lack of logic and fact to their arguments truly is amazing..

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 832 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 12:18:58 PM

  (0+)

If we put as much efforts in worrying about the living as we do for the unborn, we would live in a better place.  Embryos and fetuses as seeds in pollination are many as in cells in our blood stream.   A child that is unborn is not considered human life.  Now what is sad is once that child is born and brought into a world where he or she is not wanted or properly cared for.  They do not stand a fighting chance.  I think that is more cruel than aborting it. 

Until you take your first breath of life you are not alive.  It is like a human being connected to a machine, the mother is breathing for the child, with out her breath he has none.  It is her choice, as well as the father to want to bring into this world a wanted loving creator. 

Let me explain, I believe that once the first trimester has passed then the obligation of seeing the child through birth is there. But prior to that it is the parents choice to bring it to full term or not.  It is not murder because it was not alive.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:00:03 AM

  (0+)

If they would have aborted the bad seeds that bring death to the living, we wouldn't have such problems.  I think abortion is a necessary evil in life to prevent bad seeds from sprouting.  If a child is not from a loving relationship or the conditions are not favorable to bring a child into this world the so be it let it be terminated for the wrath of this child could end up bringing forth disaster.  How can you relate our wars with abortion, you religious individuals are really grabbing at whatever you can.

It is a special gene, I tell you, the few the proud the fundamentalists......

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:15:24 AM

  (0+)

   Yes… When the mediocre, ill informed, mean or weak minded are confronted with truth they cannot assail with reason, the next step is the vindictive assault in the attempt to marginalize.

 Being a Southerner who was always against the evils of racism and segregation, I am well versed with such however. Being a Virginian born in Arlington no less, I always stand amazed at the pronouncements of national founts of wisdom on the lack of the Christian origins of the United States. To such amazing articulations of historical revisionism I stand mute. How can one reason with proponents of an alternate reality of such amazing scale?

 Further, at this point in time we need unity. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with any American to protect their right to pronounce their belief America was created by aliens.

by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 1:03:18 PM

  (0+)

How Christians were we when we chopped the true American heads off and took over their Land.  What origin do we all come from, our Europe descent, fleeing the country and invading this one.  Yet we claim it as our own and push our religion forcefully down peoples throats.  Yes, hypocrites and opinionated we are.......  And we have the right to call others Aliens?

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:07:13 AM

  (0+)

Ok, first off, I respect that you showed the intellectual honesty to say that it was a life in the making and thus not yet a life. But as for blaming pro-choice people for Iraq - well, that is absurd and totally off the deep end.

However, I am open to hearing you out - if you can show me substantial concrete proof of that accusation, I'd change my opinion on this.

I also have a hunch that just about whatever you say could also be applied to the anti-choice people that want to force women to bear children that they do not want and often are totally unprepared to take care of - not to mention the women that are raped and don't want to be forced to bear the child of their rapists.

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 6:37:02 PM

  (0+)

Talk about trying to take things out of context! Yeah -- right -- "states rights" -- like some states tried to argue in support of segregation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
HR 300:

The Congress finds the following:
[...]
(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make 'such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actual constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
[...]
-------------------------------------------------

As for the 10th amendmen:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Meaning that no, the states CANNOT pass laws which are unconstituional! That includes rights determined by SCOTUS in Roe V Wade.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 7:16:56 PM

  (0+)

By defining a 'person' even as a new conception, this refers to constitutional protections of 'persons'. This looks like it would mean that even an unimplanted zygote might be 'murdered' according to US Code, which applies to all states and territories. Even someone using Plan B could be accused of murder under this statute. Ron Paul is apparently trying to outlaw *all* abortion.

 HR.1094:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life.

[...]

------------------------------------

18 USC Sec. 1111

a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
    aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
    any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
    killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
    perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
    espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
    abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
    practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
    perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
    to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
    killed, is murder in the first degree.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 8:05:13 PM

  (0+)

NICE JOB, JessBlakemore!

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 9:33:01 PM

  (0+)

If my living finger is cut off, is it human life as long as the cells are moving in the finger? To intentionally stop the finger moving, is that murder.

Definition of a human being? Is it personhood? Is it personality? At what point does the fetus become a person or have personality?

The human soul: Christians are pretty well set in the belief that the human soul consists of three things: cognition (intellect), volition (will), and emotion. At what point does a fetus become a human soul?

Since most Christian groups within orthodox (little "o" by choice) agree that the Bible is the basis of faith and practice (Roman Catholics believe in a second pillar belief-- all the Church Councils when the Pope spoke excathdra). If this be true, does Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." speak to the Muslim, the Christian and the Jew about the fetus having to breathe "the breath of life" to become a human being?

As a Baptist minister, I would grab the child without a second thought or a tinge of guilt. If I did not, I should be tried and found guilty of either manslaughter or murder for leaving the child and saving the fertilized eggs.

One last one: I know eight wonderful Christian women who have had tubal pregnancies. They had to experience an abortion or they would have died? Remember, if abortion is clearly a case of black and white murder these eight ladies should be in prison with their doctors, nurses, families, and friends. They should be in prison if the fertilized egg has the same value as an eight year old child because they all knowingly had a hand in the murder of the two month old fetus; if they had a hand in kidnapping the eight year old child, and knew the eight year would be murdered, they all would be in jail in any state in the Union. Do we really believe that a two month fetus is as much of a person as an eight year old child? I think not if unless we are really lacking in both normal affections of sympathy and empathy.

May the Lord bless you as you think through a very complicated and emotional issue with no cookie cutter easy answers.

Only By His Grace,

Phil Ratliff, pastor (in my 46th year as pastor)

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Aug 9, 2007 at 10:54:02 PM

  (0+)

Those that want to govern you will always use God as their crush.  It empowers them and aids in their control over you.  This God you all mention how well do you know him.  How well do you think your level of intelligence allows you to understand this force that is beyond understanding.  You have given it a name a face and place it in a box, to comfort you.

Yet do you realize that this force is beyond your scope of tangibility.  Those before you have attempted to get closer to this God by creating a book which you know as the bible, this book which was written for man to control mankind, has no more the answers to your questions than the questions you have about yourself.  The mystery will never be solved, because the deity wishes it so.  Continue to make ourselves feel better that the higher power runs life the way you see fit.  You all are so far away from the truth and knowing the outcome that it is sad to see the vicious cycle you are all in.

Free yourselves, and become one with the one, eliminate all barriers placed by mankind, then and only then will you find the answers you all are so desperately looking for.

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 9:49:47 AM

  (0+)

The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet

Thomas DuBay, S.M.

1999 Ignatius Press 

Intellectual Poverty (pgs.92-96)

“Ideas have consequences, sometimes devastating consequences that can trickle down into minute details in the lives of billions of people. The thoughts of Marx and Lenin come to mind. When academe is shoddy and poverty stricken, it is not only the professors who suffer the consequences. Eventually so do the millions who take them seriously or have the logical results of their views imposed by governmental force. History is full of examples.

We therefore continue our pursuit of the roots of societal ugliness into the halls of academe. Not all of the corridors are tainted, but those especially that are saturated with a materialistic philosophy of life, openly professed or covertly assumed. The picture is not pretty. Were not the consequences so sad, it would be amusing to notice how many of the devotees of materialism seem not to see what should be obvious in a few moments of serious thought. Of all worldviews, materialism is clearly the most dogmatic. If this appears to be too sweeping a statement, I turn to the dictionary lodged in the computer I am using and find its judgment. Materialism is “characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.” Exactly. The only changes I would make is to drop the word arrogant, for not all dogmatic people are aware of the philosophical implications of what they say and write (an important aspect of their intellectual shortcomings).

Materialism’s most basic and unproved and unprovable dogma is the assumption that nothing but matter exists. This idea can only be stated but has never been proved; indeed, it is incapable of proof. Nor will any competent authority assert it. It cannot come from science, for the idea is philosophical, not scientific, and philosophy cannot prove it either. This ideology can derive only from a willed decision and a private agenda. Chesterton pointed out the preposterous character of atheism when he remarked that “it is absurd …to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” In his study of the origins of atheism, John Courtney Murray concluded that “atheism is never the conclusion of any theory, philosophical or scientific. It is a decision, a free act of choice that antedates all theories.” There are not many positions I share with Jean Paul Sartre, but I do commend his honesty in not even attempting to cover up the lack of proof for his atheism – which is why he called it postulatory.

From its most fundamental dogma materialism derives a number of other unprovable assumptions: the invalidity of metaphysics, the autonomy of the individual exempt from higher authority, the supremacy of man, the relativity of morality, the primacy of pleasure, and the denial of human freedom.

The beautiful is likewise absent in that materialism frustrates our intelligence in being unable to offer any plausible explanation for the enormous differences between human society and any group of mere animals. It is hardly flattering to be placed on the same fundamental level as the unreasoning animal kingdom. Ordinary people know instinctively that we are irreducibly different, vastly so. Why, for example, do we alone on our planet write letters and read books, build remarkable machines like airplanes and computers, vary in endless ways our architectural designs and clothing styles, paint pictures and carve statues? Only we enjoy incongruities, tell jokes and funny stories and are amused by them, experience and express delight in laughter, experience shame. We buy and sell insurance, have money and stock exchanges, fly to the moon. We alone feel guilt, worship God, honor holiness of life, and experience the moral imperatives of conscience. Only we wonder and are endlessly curious about the universe, both the macrocosm and the microcosm, and we build telescopes and microscopes attempting to reach the ends of it. One could go on and on. To say that these enormous, irreducible differences are due to the random swirlings and relocations of atoms is to invite ridicule from normal people. To evade these unbridgeable differences and avoid any serious confrontation with them as though they did not exist is an affront far more ugly than a thief stealing your property or mine.

A further derivative misery flowing from materialism is its offense to our universal conviction that each of us is of immeasurably greater worth and significance beyond anything else in visible creation. It neither possesses nor assigns any basis for attributing a special value to man. Whatever else one may say of this gratuitous assumption, it is quite the opposite of beautiful, and in addition it lies at the root of our anti-life culture. It is difficult to imagine a more ugly cruelty than the deliberate and excruciating dismemberment and extermination of an innocent baby.

A fourth dreadful implication of materialism is nihilism: if nothing has meaning (because immaterial intelligence alone can bestow meaning), then nothing has value. Coming from the Latin, nihil, meaning “nothing”, “this doctrine declares that reality is empty, worthless, meaningless, valueless and absurd. Everything is self-contradictory, futile, null. What we consider as values (beauty, truth, goodness, love, justice) are simply created by us to answer the needs of our existence.”  

Our final observation regards the narrowness of the materialist universe: it requires a person to have a mind a priori closed to anything that threatens its monism, its matter-only assumption. I have elsewhere noted that on this premise that only matter exists the materialist cannot “coolly and objectively consider the claims of spirituality. He has no choice but to reject them even before he examines the evidence. By his unprovable dogma he must force out of court anything that does not fit into his little universe of matter. He is not free to consider openly what can be said for a divine revelation, for the soul or an afterlife or miracles. The theist on the other hand can approach any alleged happening with a completely open mind.” He can calmly look at all the evidence pro and con and then make up his mind according to how weak or strong the evidence may be. The materialist does not enjoy the freedom of being intellectually honest with the evidence.

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 3:20:45 PM

  (0+)

How original you are, cannot even speak your own words but most cut and paste someone else's.  The force that created this endless evolution is beyond your understanding, your yearning desire to believe will create the animosity we see now and in history past where mankind killed each other in the name of God.

We can only speculate what we think or believe, no one will ever know the answers, not you, not I.  In the meantime we should each learn to respect each others views and life and learn to cohabit-ate under the same stars. I grant you your beliefs in return you shall grant me mine. I am not recruiting you into my world, please return the same.

Kindness and understanding is all we can hope for in this world and our future generation.

Regards

Mark Angelo

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 4:40:54 PM

  (0+)

Mark,

Actually, I am original in that I know when somebody else can speak more authoritatively on a subject than I can. I quoted Thomas DuBay because he is a renowned theologian and author.

I think it is silly to waste my time getting emotionally involved in this debate about a reality that I know and experience on a daily basis. Regardless of what you may think, God can be known to a great degree. In fact, I am certain that I will spend the rest of my life growing in my knowledge of God. The more you get to know God, the more you realize how little you really know. Of course, there is no way we will ever comprehend Him fully. If we were able to do this, “God” would be a part of creation rather than the Creator.

It is terrible that many crimes have been committed in the name of God, and for that I am sorry. However, I challenge that thought with another: how many crimes have been committed in the name of nothing by people completely absorbed with themselves and their selfish desires? Speaking as one, I can tell you that Christians are far from being perfect just like anybody else. We may have different life-goals, but we are imperfect nonetheless. The unfair thing in this is; why does everybody have the expectation that Christians should be without sin and perfect? This goes against the very nature of our religion. If we were perfect, we would have no need for a Savior.

In regards to abortion, I believe that life begins way before conception. I realize you probably don’t believe that the Bible is the living Word of God, but I do.

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” –God

Psalm 139:13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

I wish I could say that I don’t care what you believe. The fact is that I do care. However, it is fine with me that you have your own set of beliefs. I’m not trying to win you over to Christ, rather I’m just engaging in this dialogue taking place in response to my article. I figured I could state what I believe since everybody else was doing so. I also felt compelled to stand up for my beliefs as my faith & religion quickly became the subject of anger and slander after I posted this “Statement of Faith” by Ron Paul.

Kindness & understanding are a good thing. However, there is greater hope than this.

-Jess

Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all of your heart.” -God

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 6:41:08 PM

  (0+)

The beauty of living in the great US of A is that we do have the freedom to believe as we wish, and because religion along with politics are two very hot debates, it should be kept personal, religion especially.  One can pray to whom one wishes, it cannot be wrong since we are all individuals and allowed to have our own belief system.

This is what makes us unique as individuals and should not divide us but unite us for diversity is good.  I just feel that politics and religion should not be intermixed and ones own personal thoughts should be just that. I respect your views as I hope you can respect mine.  Lets just say we should all learn to agree to disagree and live happily ever after.  Wouldn't it be a better world if we could all do that?

Peace

Mark Angelo

by Mark Angelo Cummings (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 9:14:14 PM

  (0+)

Peace, my brother! It's been nice chatting with you & all the other passionate & intelligent people who frequent this site.

Sincerely,

-Jess Blakemore

by JessBlakemore (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Aug 11, 2007 at 7:27:48 AM

  (0+)

Our final observation regards the narrowness of the materialist universe: it requires a person to have a mind a priori closed to anything that threatens its monism, its matter-only assumption. I have elsewhere noted that on this premise that only matter exists the materialist cannot “coolly and objectively consider the claims of spirituality. He has no choice but to reject them even before he examines the evidence. By his unprovable dogma he must force out of court anything that does not fit into his little universe of matter. He is not free to consider openly what can be said for a divine revelation, for the soul or an afterlife or miracles. The theist on the other hand can approach any alleged happening with a completely open mind.”

This is a misrepresentation is materialism (which is not monlithic anyway). The primary stance of materialism is not a priori that only the material exists, but that anything other the material must be proven. The *assumption* is that everything is material, but it is not dogma.

Marxist materialism dialectical and historical materialism) is something different, BTW: Marxism also uses materialism to refer to a "materialist conception of history", which is not concerned with metaphysics but centers on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced, or destroyed by that activity (see materialist conception of history). Reading of Marx confirms this.

The materialists I have dialogued with have no problem in the idea of accepting non-material reality -- as long as it can be proven. But even modern reductionism has evolved, and functionalism is a strong strain running through the philosophy now.

I see as many flaws with dualism as with materialism, and phenominalism and idealism as well. Theists are certainly not openminded, but have their a priori: the existence of a god. Materialists at least want evidence of their assumption. To say that an idea based on the need for evidence is dogma while an idea which denies a need for evidence is not dogmatic is absurd. Contrary to the article, the principles materialist assert are ONLY those which are provable -- which is precisely a major problem with it because proof itself must always exist within a closed system -- any proof of any thing, including the most rigorous mathematics -- and most certainly any statements dealing with 'spirit' which should always be made as expressive rather than assertive (a thing which religionists ignore entirely).

A major philosophical problem is how to define "exist" in the first place, along with its usual accompanying terms for space and time -- and energy or other physical forces. The developments in quantum effects and physics has disrupted much of early materialism, as it did Newtonian physics, and even Eisteinian relativity. The work of Penrose and Hameroff in quantum consciousness also cause many problems for the original naive materialistic thinking. The world moves on. Apparantly DuBay is not very knowledgable in philosophy, and particulary in more modern aspects -- he relies on mere assertion and name-calling.

All in all this article/essay is intellectually and academically so sloppy it's worthless. It also has virtually nothing to do with Ron Paul and the topic of this thread. It's pure fluff and distraction.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, Aug 10, 2007 at 6:00:06 PM

  (0+)