On Tuesday’s Radio Show…
July 8th, 2008, 6:00 PM EDT
• Iraq’s national security adviser says he wants U.S. forces to withdraw. So is it time for our troops to come home?
• Is America a Christian nation? Pastor Steve Riggle of Houston’s Grace Community Church explains why he wants to erect 150-foot crosses in major cities across the country.
• The second man to set foot on the Moon, legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin, tells Alan why he’s worried that the U.S. is falling behind in space exploration.
If I vote against a, “use of force” bill, it still passes Congress, the President then mistakenly presumes or interprets it as a, “Declaration of War,” and then acts as if it were, where is a flip-flop on my part if only after one year reconstruction has not even began? I would have, even though I voiced a No Vote, had in 2004 wanted troops to stay in Iraq to fix the initial damage done by the War. Lets say 4 to 5 years go by and it becomes apparent that the Police Action, now called a War, is out of control costing a trillion dollars of tax payer funds, while profiteering and fraud run wild, and the world hits an all time record amount of terror attacks. This is only the tip of the poison spear that is the Iraq policy. Knowing all the scandals surrounding the newly released information surrounding the White House and the footing for what they call a War; how, even if back in 2004 I supported keeping troops in Iraq in order for a governmental system could solidify, would I continue to support keeping the military there in 2008? We know a lot more now than back in 2004. It was not until Jan. 30th 2005 when Iraq had their first Democratic Vote (they voted for a Theocracy) Even people who voted No on Iraq and today want all the troops out supported keeping them there until Iraq had the election. Obama has not committed a flip-flop in any way on Iraq. Four years after that vote our troops are still there. Why would any person with a memory of the past years spent in Iraq support remaining one day longer? Obama was right to vote No, he was right to not want to withdraw before the election of 2005 and he is correct to want to pull out the military within 16 months.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
ABC News reported on 07-07-08 that yellow cake had been found in Iraq and shipped to the land of the Maple Leaf. Found? That is deception parading as news. The IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) had been aware of the yellow cake long before we invaded Iraq. In fact it was left over from Saddam’s old energy program. Which ended with the first Gulf War. The yellow cake was not under Saddam’s control before or during our invasion; rather the IAEA was. The amount of yellow cake was not enough to even make a weapon. It was sealed by the IAEA. It was under US and International control. Why would the initial reports by a news agency report it as found or as a discovery? Perhaps, the reason is to influence public opinion with falsehood verging on propaganda during an election? What other reason would they have for such sloppy or incomplete reporting? I think it is clear what the reason is for such slop. If you are going to report news give the people a complete rundown. That would be only if you, the reporter cared about honesty or ethics in journalism. The only thing found was a new spin on old news.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
There are many Americans who claim that there is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. It may not say it directly in those exact words, true. Though the wording of the First Amendment creates a separation of Church and Government. Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Some religious conservatives use the words “freedom of religion,” to defend their argument for an American Theocracy. The words, freedom of religion, are not specifically in the Constitution either. The exact words are, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” They all to often forget the establishment aspect and only concentrate upon the free exercise. T. Jefferson drafted the Bill of Rights and in a personal letter further expanded upon what he was referring to by restricting the Government from establishing or promoting religion. Jefferson said the First Amendment clause created a “wall of separation” between the Church and State. Given Jefferson’s own words on what he wrote in the Bill of Rights, I would argue that the issue is very clear pertaining to the interpretation of the First Amendment. Many Conservatives, even the so-called Liberal Barak Obama, fail to realize that Jefferson had to separate Church and State so that there could be religious freedom for all forms of conscience or belief. The First Amendment is a work of art due to the combination or sum of its factors. Free speech, free press, free assembly, redress of grievances, exercise of religion, and the absence of religion within Government all create Liberty, our Sovereign Rights, or the lack of State Tyranny over Individual Citizen.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
The term Secular has been tainted by many in the US to mean Atheism with out thinking about why government is Secular. Secular government is the removal of religion from state, the removal of religion from reason, logic, and law while respecting its existence outside of government. Secular Government protects the freedom of religion by not including it in the laws that govern the nation. Steven Waldman (speaking of faith NPR) could not be more incorrect when he mentions the founding fathers personal belief as proof that religion or the church should fuse with government. State written prayers, church/religion, or state belief systems violate the individuals right to believe as they choose. Steven Waldman should realize that a secular government keeps any singular form of religion from taking control of the government. A secular system of democracy is the cornerstone to the foundation of the amendments that allow citizens the right to believe in any or no religious system. The separation of church and state or the anti-establishment clause of the constitution allows Christian religious conservatives to practice their faith as they see fit. As well it protects the Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, the freedom of religion does not mean that any one religion has a right to use the state as a tool for self-advancement. The argument that the separation is a gray area is a fallacy. A nation is either secular or theocratic. There is no gray area. The separation of church and state was not intended for the flourishing of any one religion. It was intended to keep all belief free by keeping the state out or belief. There is no mention of any sectarian definition of God used in any historical document of the US, nor should there be. Waldman should remember that there was no founding faith outlined in the declaration of independence or the constitution. I would ask Waldman who’s God does it refer to? Does religion truly make for improved civic or individual behavior patterns? Some of the worst elements of society have been devoutly religious, Hitler, the BTK killer, the leaders of the Christian and Muslim crusades, the witch hunters of Europe and early America, Bin Laden, and on and on it goes. Yes there was Stalin and Poll Pot but they pale in comparison to the religious violence perpetrated over the millennium. So I would argue that the founding fathers knew history well and that is why they created a secular government even while they may have been religious themselves. It is sad that many Christians hear the term religion and think only of themselves. How greedy and self-serving. We must realize that secularism rejects religion in government while recognizing its right to exist separate from government, in the privacy of your home and places of worship. It recognizes God given rights while not recognizing any particular organized religion.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Christianity is as segregationist as any other discriminatory Faith. The pleasantries only apply to Christians. This is the reason for the growing hate of secular government, non-believers, or people who dare to question religion. This discrimination is just as ugly a trait as those found in Extremist Islam or any other Fundamentalist religious sect. When people bring up the ugly verses of the Bible many Christians say that Jesus negated those verses. Well, He never said that the covenants or orders from God in the Old Testament were negated. This is one reason why religion can become de-reformed or unreformed. We in the modern civilization are lucky that Christians have misinterpreted or ignore sections of the Bible in most denominations or sects of Christianity. Matthew 5:17, John 5:45-47, Luke 24:44, John 6:19-23, and Hebrews 11:23-29 are all direct references to Moses and the Law of the Old Testament, yet they ignore many covenants of the Old Test. Many Christians Feel that Jesus would absolve them or not enforce Old Test. Law like the unethical verses held within Deuteronomy, Leviticus, or any other Book that outline the punishments to be carried out for breaking God’s Laws. A few examples are Deuteronomy verses 30:17-18/13:6-18/17:2-6 & 22:13-24, Exodus 35:2/21:7/22:18/22:20/22:29/31:14-16, Leviticus verses 27:29/24:10-15 & 6:25, or Matthew 5:25. Non-believers are lucky that Christians have not been interpreting the Bible the way it could be interpreted. Jesus could have been claiming that one who felt that he or she had no sin could throw that first stone and there are those in our society who feel that they are absolved of sin due to their belief in Jesus. It is most likely that Jesus would order his followers to obey the edicts and covenants of the Old Testament due to the continual references by Jesus to fulfill the Law’s given by God through Moses. This is why Christianity can be as dangerous as Islamic Extremists. Christians believe that His death cleansed them of original sin; thus they feel that, if they live without sin they are now righteous through their belief in Jesus. As well, if they repent or confess their sin they are now without sin. It is these self-righteous people that scare me, because they would throw that first stone. As well, if you feel that belief in Jesus as a Son of God is absolute, than the laws of Moses, as punishment for sin no longer applies to those free of sin due to Jesus. This is the root of separatism and the elevation of themselves away from the rest of society. This exclusionary attitude is what drives the culture war. They feel that they are right while others are wrong because a book said so. They have the right to believe that but I have the right to say that is not based on logic, reason, or fact, rather it is based only on faith. The trick is in the details of the absolutist aspect of, believe or else. You were excused from the treatment under Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and other Biblical Books only if you were a believer in Jesus as God. But if you do not the punishments described applied directly to you, thus Mat. 5:17 is not a pass from Moses Law rather it is the pathway to avoid being stoned to death only if you follow Jesus as God. Now I do not claim any religion or faith. I do worry about any push towards using Biblical Law within Government. Because one can interpret the Bible to suit any means to any end that one can dream up. Most people think that Jesus was all about peace and love. This belief is only true if you believe that He was a God or a Son of God. Jesus would only bring peace and love for those who agree with Him as He states in Matthew 10:34-39 or John 8:24. All other non-believers fall under the code of Moses and the treatment of non-believers mentioned through out the Bible. Modern absolutist or literalistic fundamentalism has interpreted the Bible to include the non-belief in Jesus as a sin or blasphemy. There are many who claim that Christianity is some how more advanced, superior, moral, or gentle version of religion than Islamic Fundamentalists. I would argue that Evangelical Fundamentalist Extremists are just as dangerous or potentially threatening to a free society as Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists. I would also argue that all the main three religions are all capable of 7th or 15th century treatment of those whom they view as different or non-believers. Any good that has come from religion is negated by all the religious war, hate, terrorism, discrimination, or violence that permeate the history of human existence. We are lucky to live in a secular nation, where the government is not governed by religion nor is religion governed by the state. Our only protection from reverting to witch hunts, crusades, forced conversions, and other religious injustice is our secular government. The potential for abuse of mankind is written within the pages of the Bible because it treats those who do not believe as subhuman soulless 2nd class citizens and there is nothing that can eliminate that effect within the society of Biblical Theology.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Without secular government, Liberty would become extinct.
This is not in any way an argument for atheism; rather it is an argument for true Liberty.
Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jewish religion love to toss around the words secular and atheist as if they are the same thing. This is the height of idiocracy and ignorance. Secularism is a style of government. Atheism is a system of thought or belief in the lack of belief in any higher power or God. Secularism is the separation of God and the State or God and government. Atheists do not separate anything; it is the absolute rejection of any belief in God. Secularism is a methodology, a system, or a form of governance. Secular government separates religion, church, or God from government in order to protect all thought, belief, and religion. The government must remain secular so that Christians can continue to believe as they see fit and the sane applies to Muslims Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists or Agnostics, any belief. Secular government is not atheistic government; rather it is the removal of religion from government so that all the other rights that we enjoy may exist. Without secular government there would be no free speech, free thought, free expression, free belief (freedom of religion), or even the ability to have fair due process.
Without secular government and the protection of our separation of church and state we will eventually evolve into a Theocracy. When secular government goes the way of the Dinosaurs we loose religious freedom. (Many Christians feel that religious freedom means the freedom of Christianity and nothing else) The dominant religion will always take the positions of power and thus enforce its will or faith (theology) upon the entire population if the state gives up on the restriction in the constitution of government promotion of religion and the establishment of any state religion. Many Christians and Muslims or Jewish followers feel that all other religions are not real, true, or correct versions of faith, which denotes all other religions to the classification of non-religion. This is a sad reality when you converse with religious people you will find that the main three religions share this false religion dogma. The sick fact that all three use terms like heathen, apostate, blasphemer, and non-believer which is the same as infidel.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
When your friends sound like your enemy we must be afraid, very afraid. Some conservatives love to hate secular government and the unrelated idea of atheism. This is disturbing when Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the US said in a Frontline PBS interview concerning the war between the Soviet’s and Afghanistan, “Osama Bin Laden would say, Thank you for bringing the Americans to help us get through the secularist, atheist Soviets.” This was Prince Bandar’s recital of a conversation with Bin Laden back in the 80’s, does it sound like the same expression of hatred toward secular government that many conservatives here in the US spew over the airwaves? Yes. When conservatives mention their displeasure of intellectual elitists or liberal college professors they sound very similar to the exact words of some people in Iran (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Some conservatives like to place the woman in a subservient role in society. They constantly are complaining about the women’s liberation movements of the 60’s and 70’s (Limbaugh). Many complain that a woman’s place is in the home, while the man’s role is that of the sole provider. Some complain about sexual identities being confused by women in the workplace or being dominant to men in some relationships or marriages. This sounds like most of the M. Eastern Islamic States, like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It may not be as extreme, but it is non-the less strikingly similar ideologies. There is a lot of similarities that disturb me, the largest one is that of Biblical Law being added to Constitutional Law here in the US. We cannot say, as Condi Rice, that the best hope for a free Iraq is “secular government” (Newsweek quote) and yet claim that the only way to improve the US is more religion in our own governmental system. We have religious freedom only due to our secular government. Secular government is not atheism; rather it is only the removal of religion from government while the government thus respects religion’s existence outside of government. That is the wall of separation that Jefferson insisted upon and is within the constitution. If we throw our secular government away we will be no better than those Theocracies we seem to fear so much. We are under threat by not only foreign Theocracies (religious governments or nation states); rather we are under the grave threat by our home grown Theocratic movements. When some conservatives mention the need to do away with secular government in the USA, they usually mean only their form of God or religion fusing with the Law. This consequently means a loss of the freedom for all religious belief, the ability to believe in no God, or the freedom to believe that you are not sure if God exists or not. Thus, the people who wish for an American Theocracy wish only for themselves, and that is a sin in and of its self.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Dr. Dobson would have us believe that all law and morals originate strictly from the Old or New Testament. What did people do before the Bible? There were people on Earth long before the Bible. They had systems of government, family structure, family values, tribal norms, cultural norms and they had morals. What! They had morals? No way! Yes. I know it sounds hard to believe but the Bible is not the originator of morals. Common sense is. Basic human compassion is the true source of our morals. The concern for relatives, children, and those near to our emotions drive the human conscience. Thus it is this tight group association from our past that created morals or ethics, which enabled our ancient ancestors to survive unforgiving predators, climates, and competing tribes or groups of people. Emotions are the root of morals (love, concern, sympathy, etc) Emotions like hate, jealousy, vengeance, etc. are the root of what Dr. Dobson would call Evil. Even the lack of emotion is a factor in actions we call evil. With no emotion any Evil act is possible by mentally unstable or deranged individuals. We as a species had emotion and a conscience long before the Old and New Testament. Dare I say, morals evolved. Did the Native Americans have a complex governmental system? Yes, they had tribal councils with elders who would deal with the societal issues of individuals or the tribe as a whole. They were unaware of the Bible yet many of the Native Americans were peaceful, loving, respectful peoples. They rarely had to deal with murder, stealing, and many of the other issues which plaque modern civilizations that used the Bible as a moral guide. The Native Americans would punish thieves, murders, and other social deviants. They had as many morals as any Christian population, yet with no Bible in sight. If you require a book in order for you to be good, that is fine. I would rather people act in a moral manner out of common sense and logic of their own choice; for it would mean more than some one who needs the fear of punishment to behave. The fact that many civilizations prior to the existence of the Bible had systems for dealing with social misbehavior, crime, or disobedience (China, Native Americans, Japan, Persia, Pre-Christian Rome, Greek, Pre-Christian Celtic, or Egyptian) is historical proof that morals pre-date Judea-Christian Texts. Dr Dobson proves not that he is more moral than others. Dobson proves that he is not aware of History and in his ignorance he believes that the Bible is the sole origin of morals while negating the morals of Native Americans and cultures that are much older than Christianity. Dr. Dobson displays his cultural arrogance by his assertion of the origin of morality.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
^^Hey, windy ^^. Get your own blog, man.
The “moon landing was a hoax” nut confronted Buzz Aldrin in a hotel lobby somewhere a few years ago. The nut tried to “convince” Buzz to reveal the “truth” about how the moon landings were all staged in Hollywood or something.
Buzz decked him. Cleaned his clock. Fed him a fist sandwich.
I like that.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
He’s back! Oh boy…
July 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
What the hell, John? PARAGRAPHS, MAN- PARAGRAPHS! I can’t read all that lumped together shit. And it usually seems like you have an interesting, well thought perspective. But it’s always unreadable.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
John~ Not that you’re going to actually communicate with us, but I would like to comment on your bit about morals. I agree, but many Americans don’t know enough about the history of religion to do the same. They take it for granted that we “are” and “were” a Christian nation founded on Christian principles (not entirely true, of course). They also take it for granted that civilizations lived together with their own morals and laws prior to the Bible. The most notable ancient law source is HAMMURABI’S CODE, which consisted of over 280 laws.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Whew…is that guy conservative or liberal? I’m not reading all that dang stuff! BE SUCCINCT!
July 8th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Amen, yes indeed we need 150 ft. crosses in every city with foreskins of every male hanging from them and with fountains flowing with the blood of Jesus into giant pools for people to jump in and cleanse their sins in 24/7.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
He comes off as more liberal than conservative, Fury.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
150 ft crosses? I was just watching Kingdon of Heaven the other day and recall the Christians dragging the massive crosses throughout Jerusalem to fight the Muslims.
150 ft crosses don’t change what’s inside of people. In the long run the same end result will probably obtain in the USA.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Put a cross on this guys head and if he can juggles three oranges, by golly, I’ll give him a nickel.
This guy is truly Lord Dufus.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Prayer towers is exactly what we all need, just ask any of the six million of god’s favorite people(Jews) how well prayer works.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
ALAN COLMES GOES TO A CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON SUNDAY! I COULDN’T BELIEVE MY EARS! SPREAD THE WORD!
July 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Sorry, that was Flap who asked.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The bit about America being a Christian nation.. or that it was rooted in Christian principles is due to the Founders’ belief that only a self-controlling, self-moderating people could actually live in Liberty.
And that without Christianity, evenetually this self-restraint would break-down and Liberty would turn into the Mob/Anarchy and then to tryanny.
So it’s entirely consistant to say that America was a Christian nation as a people, with a secular government.
Here are some samples
John Adams
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798
Charles Carroll – signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
” Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Alexander Hamilton
“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
Thomas Jefferson
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. 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 a gift from 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, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]
James Madisan
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
Jedediah Morse:
“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
Noah Webster
Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
and the great and honorable George washington… who the more I learn about , the more I am just in awe of the man.
George Washington:
The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion” …and later: “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian” [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.
Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter):
Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”
========
I know you Lefties are probably have seizures right now.
The point is not to institute the thing you are most paranoid of.. which is a theocracy (although you all are quiet about Islamic theocracy).. but instead the People.. the Nation need a moral foundation.. a rock-solid foundation in order to maintain freedom and liberty.
So mock all of this to your heart’s content. Better people than you only need to say “I told you so” at today’s poor state.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
That Thomas Jefferson quote is interesting. Supposedly he was a Deist. I’m not sure, but it seems like a Deistic God doesn’t do things like wrath or justice. Seems a little Theistic.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Hinduism is the oldest religion.
Judaism came before Christianity, and Christianity came before Islam.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Frank said~
“Amen, yes indeed we need 150 ft. crosses in every city with foreskins of every male hanging from them and with fountains flowing with the blood of Jesus into giant pools for people to jump in and cleanse their sins in 24/7.”
OMG, Frank. LOL LOL LOL LOL
Flap~ you’re right. A deist god wouldn’t give a shit about anything going on down here. I’m pretty certain that Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both deists, in fact I KNOW that Jefferson was.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Other than black Africans, no one has suffered more from Islam than the Hindu civilization.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:01 am
vince~ it appears that you have quite an interest in Muslims.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:04 am
where’s epiphany been? i hope she’s okay. :-(
July 9th, 2008 at 12:06 am
dunno, but the call screener says i’m right about alan.com.
brag brag brag brag
July 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Cheryl…my point was that perhaps Jefferson was not so Deistic? Read the last paragraph of his second inaugural address:
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres17.html
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”
Providence? Wisdom? Power? Goodness? Guidance? Is that Deistic? I don’t know much about Jefferson but it seems strange.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Cheryl: Islam is going to be the biggest “thing” in all our lives. IMHO.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:44 am
flap: I try not to define a person’s spirituality as a static thing (unless of course, it was static).. seems entirely within reason that he could have many differing opinions regarding his faith depending on the time, topic, place, context. etc..
Jefferson was a “deep thinker”, so he probably has held to the entire spectrum of thought in his lifetime regarding his spirituality.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Good points, Vince…makes sense that his views probably were dynamic when it came to Theism/Deism.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I like deep thinkers. I wish there were more of them in the world.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Nicomachean Ethics (by Aristotle?) cites a life of contemplation as one of 3 goals humans should focus on.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:52 am
In response and addition to “John David Prince” (JDP), he has SOME understanding of our founding fathers. However, he doesn’t go into the reason WHY they desired to form another union that was SEPARATE from Great Britain and the “Church of England”.
First, let’s address some additional facts and TRUTH:
1) The founding fathers of the US came to North America for FREEDOM. Freedom from what? Religion ruling the government. What religion? Roman Catholicism – hence, the “Church of England”. They basically did NOT want a certain sect of religion to rule the government.
2) They wanted to form a country that was FREE from the rule of the Catholic Church. WHY? Because most of them were PROTESTANTS, which are a group of religious sects OTHER than Catholic (all are sects of Christianity).
3) The Founding Fathers state in the Constitution, as JDP stated, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When the founding fathers spoke of “religion”, they were NOT referring to Islam, Buddhism, or Hare Krishna. They were referring to PROTESTANT religion (Christianity). What Liberals WANT people to believe is that all the Founding Fathers were Atheists and that “freedom of religion” actually means “freedom FROM religion”. Also, the Founding Fathers did NOT want a person’s choice of sect of “religion” (again, referring to PROTESTANTS) to keep them from getting in office.
4) The Founding Fathers created laws according to morality originated from their “PROTESTANT religions”. This does NOT mean that people would NEVER use religion and become corrupt. People did that even back in the “bible days”.
5) America is NOT a “Christian nation”. However, most of its FOUNDING laws and ethics are based on a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN foundation. Also, MOST countries outside of the US see the US as a “Christian nation”. It’s a FACT that the US sends the MOST missionaries to other countries AND is one of the MOST GENEROUS nations in the world.
I would like someone to try and DENOUNCE the above FACTS and TRUTH to be UNTRUE…
July 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
“Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
That pretty much explains the current administration.
Well, except for the gallantry. There’s a lot of that in the military, not so much in the White House.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:58 am
M Coleman: The Church of England was quite Protestant and the Christians who fled England were Protestant.. very austere ones.
Allow me to copy a comment I made elsewhere to a Syrian who asked the question number 1. Aspects of my answer I would fix , but don’t feel like it now… starting with the word “Most” in my answer’s first sentence
1- Why early Americans fighting the British and they won their independence from their Christian Brother and sister who they cam from?
Most of the original settlers from Britian left Britian because of religious issues. The colonists who left Britian did so because they faced religious persecuation from British society… think of them as the minority shiites who fled from the oppression by the majority Sunni establishment.(dont take this analogy too far)
The folks who left were often as intolerant of the other Christian sects as the other sects were of them.. so they left and decided to risk everythign to settle in America.
Not all the America-bound sects were hostile though.. most just wanted to be free to live their lives without interference from society or government. religion was very political in Britian in those days.. bloody conflict between Catholics and the Protestants of the Church of England.
This is why when 100s of years later and the Consitution was drafted it was decided the Federal Govt would have nothing to do with establishing a national church or affiliation. Since religion was removed from political power, the differing religious groups were able to co-exist since neither dominated the either. Religion being suppressed from controlling the government and the government being suppressed from abusing religion is the NUMBER ONE reason why America is still a very religious nation to this day. We avoided all the conflict that happened in Europe due to their mixing of religion and politics. And by so doing , religion was not discredited with the public because government wasn’t able to abuse it.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The Church of England is Anglican, not Catholic.
Many of our founding fathers were deists, not Christians.
“The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine explains a lot for those who would like to know the thinking at the time.
Lay the Constitution down next to a Bible and compare. They contradict each other in most all respects.
The bible does say to sell your clothes and by arms; so the 2nd Amendment crowd should be happy.
“What Liberals WANT people to believe is that all the Founding Fathers were Atheists and that “freedom of religion” actually means “freedom FROM religion”.”
Now that’s nonsense.
I know of no Atheist that claims our founding fathers were Atheists; though Jefferson was accused of being just that.
I would point out though that ‘freedom of religion includes the freedom from religion.
All of your rights include the right to opt out within them. Else it wouldn’t be a ‘freedom’.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:29 am
My second post is regarding Congress. Lobbying should be ILLEGAL. What is lobbying?
3. a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group’s special interest.
–verb (used without object)
4. to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body.
–verb (used with object)
5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, esp. legislators).
6. to urge or procure the passage of (a bill), by lobbying.
So as we can see, it’s basically a group of people who try to coerce or influence (and sometimes bribe and blackmail) legislators to pass laws that benefit their “special interests” (usually big corporations).
Lobbying should be ILLEGAL in my honest opinion. Or, at least lobbying by CORPORATIONS should be illegal, especially if the “cause” only benefits the companies and not the people.
————————–
“BIG OIL IS GAUGING CONSUMERS AND MAKING RECORD PROFITS”
Alan Colmes is giving FALSE INFORMATION when it comes to the price of oil, the “big oil” companies, and profits. He has NO UNDERSTANDING about the term and concept of “profit margin”.
Just because companies make “record profits” doesn’t mean they’re gauging people. What is happening in the oil industry is simple ECONOMICS (I remember taking it in 10th grade…so he must not have paid attention in class). Here are some FACTS AND TRUTH that Alan Colmes is CLUELESS about:
1) Simple economics – The reason why cost has risen is because of GLOBAL DEMAND of oil. Production of oil is ALMOST EQUALING its current demand and usage. 86 billion barrels per day are produced, and almost ALL of that is being used, so there is NO EXTRA SUPPLY.
If the supply goes up but demand does not, then prices come down because of the excess supply. However, if demand goes up and there is no excess supply, the PRICE will increase due to exceeding demand. This USUALLY forces people to consume LESS of the product.
2) PROFIT MARGIN – The oil companies are still making the SAME 10 cents on EACH DOLLAR of gasoline sold as they have been for the last 10-20 years.
If the price of gas is $1.00/gallon (back in 1980-1995), they make 10 cents on each gallon. 90 cents is their COST of making gas.
If the price of gas is $4.00/gallon, they make 40 cents on EACH gallon. Where did the other $4.50 go? It was what they DID NOT make in profit. Duh!!
Will profits increase? YES!! Why? Because it COSTS them more now!! It’s not that hard to understand. If the cost of production rises, but your profit margin does NOT, you will STILL make more profit because your profit MARGIN has NOT increased. They make about 4 times as much now, and their profit MARGIN has not increased.
3) Other industries have MUCH HIGHER profit margins:
Cosmetics – 20%
Furniture – 15-20%
Electronics – 15-20%
Think I’m lying? Check my sources:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=498
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/
http://www.theonlineinvestor.com/stock_research/top_10_profit_margins/
http://www.theonlineinvestor.com/stock_research/top_10_profit_margins/top_10_margins_-_oil_and_gas/
So who is REALLY gauging us?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Boogie: You’re missing the point. The point wasn’t that the Constitution was a new version of the Torah.
The point was that the Constiution is predicated on the notion that it’s system of Liberty would only work with a people who were self-governed by the self-restraint of the moralism of Christianity.
The point wasn’t to impose anythign on anyone. The point was that only a religious people, in the long run, could maintain Liberty.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Vince P – “This is why when 100s of years later and the Consitution was drafted it was decided the Federal Govt would have nothing to do with establishing a national church or affiliation. Since religion was removed from political power, the differing religious groups were able to co-exist since neither dominated the either. Religion being suppressed from controlling the government and the government being suppressed from abusing religion is the NUMBER ONE reason why America is still a very religious nation to this day. We avoided all the conflict that happened in Europe due to their mixing of religion and politics. And by so doing , religion was not discredited with the public because government wasn’t able to abuse it.”
My response – I agree with you on this. I had the sect of religion wrong with the “Church of England”. My point is that they wanted to be free from the church controlling the government and the government abusing religion.
—————
Vince P (regarding my comment about “freedom of religion” and “freedom FROM religion”) – Now that’s nonsense.
I know of no Atheist that claims our founding fathers were Atheists; though Jefferson was accused of being just that.
I would point out though that ‘freedom of religion includes the freedom from religion.
All of your rights include the right to opt out within them. Else it wouldn’t be a ‘freedom’.
My response – I agree, the “freedom of religion” means you can opt out. However, my point is that politicians want US to believe that the Constitution states “freedom FROM religion”, which it does NOT state.
Another truth: There are very FEW “Liberal” radio talk shows that are successful, especially SYNDICATED ones. Actually, I don’t know of ANY actual syndicated Liberal radio talk show hosts. Do you? Alan Colmes is not included because he’s part of Fox News, which is a Liberal-slanted station anyways.
Another startling truth regarding responses about Obama’s plans for America: Have you ever noticed recently that when people are asked DIRECT questions about Obama’s plans that they usually go OFF TOPIC from the question presented and usually say something about McCain? Alan actually did that on the radio show last week!! When Alan was asked a question about Obama’s plans, he said something to the effect of “McCain’s plan is horrible…” but NEVER said ANYTHING about Obama’s actual plans. It was quite hilarious.
Some others thoughts about America:
1) We need to declare ENGLISH as the national language in our Constitution.
2) Our children should NOT be forced to learn Spanish.
3) ALL those who want to become US Citizens should know how to speak AND write English, and should have at least the knowledge to pass a GED.
Any other thoughts?
July 9th, 2008 at 3:32 am
It was time to bring home the troops the minute we started reconstructing Iraq in the middle of a war. The first rule of mass destruction is “Don’t build as you tear down.” What war actually spent money reconstructing as we were deconstructing?
July 9th, 2008 at 3:37 am
M Coleman, you can see this link for the rankings of Talk Radio Audiences
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
I listen to NPR if I’m in the car. I dont know if that counts.
When I’m at work I’ll listen to various podcasts of Beck, Levin, Prager, or Hewitt. Oh Michael Medved has great callers.. most of whom disagree with him.
I think you confused me with someone else about Freedom of/from Religion.
>Some others thoughts about America:
>1) We need to declare ENGLISH as the national language in our Constitution.
I believe English as national language should be affirmed somehow.
>2) Our children should NOT be forced to learn Spanish.
I suppose they shouldnt be forced. I agree with that.
>3) ALL those who want to become US Citizens should know how to speak AND write English, and should have at least the knowledge to pass a GED.
Yes.
I also think anyone on the public dole should be suspended from voting. I think there should be a Constitution test every 4 years for voting registration.
I think the 17th Amendent should be repealed
I think the number of Reps in Congress should be increased
I think there should be a law that Rep districts be as square , geometerically, as possible.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Vince P – I think you confused me with someone else about Freedom of/from Religion.
My response – I sure did. I’m sorry about that. It was “Boogieman” who made the comment.
Vince P – I also think anyone on the public dole should be suspended from voting. I think there should be a Constitution test every 4 years for voting registration.
I think the 17th Amendent should be repealed
I think the number of Reps in Congress should be increased.
I think there should be a law that Rep districts be as square , geometerically, as possible.
My response – I can see why you’d say that anyone on the public dole should be suspended from voting. The reasoning I could see behind that is because most people think they are mostly ignorant people who are comprised of the uneducated. However, I beg to differ with this because my wife were on the public dole after getting married and having children…while we were finishing COLLEGE.
As for the Constitution test, I don’t think necessarily that should be a requirement. However, I do think a couple very general questions about the Constitution should be part of the GED test.
The 17th amendment shouldn’t be repealed. I think it should be changed in terms of the time frame, but not repealed.
I agree, the number Reps in Congress should be increased to represent far more people rather than just the “rich few”. However, at this point, the biggest concern is about the QUALITY of Reps. Most politicians are liars and hypocrites (kinda like “religious” people) and are really in office for themselves and NOT the people.
I agree, districts should be cut evenly in even, square parts as possible…and legislators could NOT change them at ANY time they want.
I personally think we should repeal the 16th Amendment and enact the “FairTax”. Food, clothing, and shelter (whether owned or rented, as long as it’s your PRIMARY residence) should NOT be taxed as well.
One major point, I hate ILLEGAL immigration. No, that is NOT a “racist” statement (which is what some people want to make you believe). I have NO problem with LEGAL immigration. We’re a sovereign nation, just like France, Denmark, and other countries. You want to become ‘American’? You MUST learn the language. You CANNOT simply cross the border, and have a baby in order to get your baby to be a US citizen. If we find the MOTHER is an illegal immigrant, the CHILD should still be ILLEGAL as well (yes, that seems harsh because the child does not choose its parents, but that makes them think twice that they’ll get a free ride. It’s either 1) keep them away by enacting a law like that, or 2) let them have babies here only to deport the parents and not their children….which adds to the DHHS backlogs because when parents are deported, children are left without parents.) ILLEGAL immigration is KILLING our economy.
It’s bad enough we have people who are native to America that are on welfare. It’s even worse when you add the children (and/or families) of illegal immigrants…
July 9th, 2008 at 4:21 am
>My response – I can see why you’d say that anyone on the public dole should be suspended from voting. The reasoning I could see behind that is because most people think they are mostly ignorant people who are comprised of the uneducated. However, I beg to differ with this because my wife were on the public dole after getting married and having children…while we were finishing COLLEGE.
Actually my reason has nothing to do with education. (I believe the longer someone is in college the dumber they get… I have a lot of respect for people who are self-made , uncredentialed)
I think people who live off Government money shouldn’t vote because the potential is there that the basis of the decision of who to vote for will be the continuation of such payment to the voter.
I’m only talking at the Federal Level , I dont have an opinion about the State/Local govs.
Why the Fed Govt is even involved in direct money support of individuals is a mystery to me.
It’s just another indication of the how the notions of Federalism and Enumerated Powers have been completely destroyed.
The 17th Amend needs to go because the Senate was designed to represents the States. As governments.
It was the only check the States had on the power of the Federal Govt.
If State Governments had retained their status in the Fed Govt I bet the Fed Govt would be half the size it is today.
I believe the entire border should have a physical barrier (except at crossign points of course) and the military be placed there.
I dont know how many of you know this but Hezbellah has been operating in Central/South America for many years. Preparing for something.
The border needs to be protected primariyl for national security reasons but also to protect our culture and people from the onslaught of massive migration.
No child born to Illegals should be considered to have claim to citizenship and if their parents get deported, so do they.. too bad.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:49 am
“However, my point is that politicians want US to believe that the Constitution states “freedom FROM religion”, which it does NOT state.”
I know of no politician that says that.
Do you? It’s the motor mouths on squawk radio, and some prominent religious icons that claim that the Constitution doesn’t give ‘freedom from religion’. They are flat wrong. Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are the two sides of the same coin. Those that want to keep the religious advocates from their efforts to make this a theocracy point out the rights of those who have little use for religion are included in the 1st Amendment.
IIRC, Ed Schultz is syndicated. There may be others.
The ‘fair tax/flat tax’ scams are a back door way of giving a big tax break to the rich. It will go nowhere. Advocates of both lie through their teeth about rates and who benefits.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“The point was that the Constitution is predicated on the notion that it’s system of Liberty would only work with a people who were self-governed by the self-restraint of the moralism of Christianity.”
I find that a stretch, if not preposterous. While self restraint is part of the base for morality, religion isn’t necessity for that restraint.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“3) ALL those who want to become US Citizens should know how to speak AND write English, and should have at least the knowledge to pass a GED.”
See U.S. Department of Homeland Security: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=12e596981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD
“Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.”
“An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States.”
July 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[Don't know why I got the weird spacing in the post above, but it wasn't anything deliberate.]
July 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
James Baker and Warren Christopher should read the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8: Congress’s list of Responsibility: (Paraphrased): “Provide for the common defence and general Welfare, regulate Commerce, coin money, Declare War, raise money to Arm and organize Armies, and to make Laws.” They would notice the duties outlined of Congress and “declaring war” is left exclusively to the Congress. Baker believes that the just because the Constitution makes the president commander in chief. Yes the President is commander in chief of the military but this does not give him or her the power to “declare war.” The constitution never gives the President that power. Why, a little known concept called co-equal branches of government or the separation of powers. Once Congress “declares war” the President is the commander of how the military conducts that war. That is what a commander does, command, not declare. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was put in place for a good reason. It is there to fortify what is already in the Constitution pertaining to Congress’s power to declare war. If Presidents continue to ignore the War Powers Act Congress should do its job and pass a law that forces the Presidents hand to obey the Law. Congress should act to hold Presidents accountable for ignoring the Constitution; rather than letting them off the hook. Getting rid of the War Powers Act would be giving in to Presidents who have no respect for the Rule of Law. Baker and Christopher should use some logic that includes the enforcement required to obey the Rule of Law, the Constitution. Just because people ignore a law is not a justification for throwing out the law. That is the art of giving in to those who break the law. “Power makes men wanton…. It intoxicates the mind.” Sam Adams, Boston Gazette, 1771
July 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm