Woman to Woman

By RS

October 22, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this

Contrary to the twisted beliefs of some of the hate-filled, bigoted Bible-thumpers I’ve seen in these blogs who feel anyone who is not a Christian is a Satan-worshipper, yes, I think it’s entirely appropriate. But, let’s leave it at GOD & not bring individual religions into it. No Jesus, no Allah, no Jehovah, you get the picture. People, how many times can you close your eyes & ignore the fact that there are decent, loving, caring, God-fearing, tax-paying citizens in this country, AND fighting overseas in Iraq who are of religions other than Christian? Jesus practiced tolerance, why can’t you?

By Randy

October 22, 2004 03:59 PM | Link to this

There is only one true creator. His sons name is Jesus. Case closed. Anything else is a deception by the evil one!

By moveon

October 22, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

I guess Diane didn’t get enough of the Abortion discussion last time, or that’s her favorite argument for Kerry.

To use such loaded words as ‘racist’ and ‘enslaving minority groups’ shows how faulty Diane’s argument really is.

That a candidate would stand up and say, “I firmly beleve X, but will do Y” does not make a good leader.

Everyone does ascribe to some system of beliefs for the way they look a the world, even the way they’d run the country. A President who will not knowingly go with ideas that are wrong is what we all looked up to in JFK and MLK.

Think about it, it was those men (and many more like them) that believed the “consensus” in the country was wrong, and worked to change it. If Kennedy had been so concerned with consensus, the Civil Right’s movement would have been forcibly put down, as it was parts of the south.

By Randy

October 22, 2004 05:03 PM | Link to this

President Bush should follow has religious believes while in office only if he wants the USA to be blessed by GOD. President Bush, just like all the presidents before him is a Christian and should follow the principals that were set down by the founding fathers, principals of Judeo-Christian religion. Anything else opens up dangerous possibilities and leaves us open to the country going downhill. If anything, we need to get closer to GOD and Jesus as a country, not further away. I disagree with Diane, God and Jesus, while being a belief, have also been proven logically. People who don’t believe are the ones who are thinking illogically. Example, between 500 and 600 people met with and talked to Jesus, after he rose from the grave. In comparison, If one eyewitness sees you murder someone today, you are a dead duck. What does Jesus and God have to do to prove you need them. Its unbelieveable what people who don’t believe say and I guess think, to keep from accepting this fact. I guess if Jesus came down and shook their hand and then assended back into heaven, they still wouldn’t believe.

By norman

October 25, 2004 07:09 AM | Link to this

Instead of asking whether a president should use his religious beliefs in public we should ask that a president use his bully pulpit to help wean the American public from its addiction to ancient Semitic and Hellenistic susperstition — namely the whole Christian tradition. We don’t cure our physical ailments with advice from Galen and Aristotle, why do we think that ancient biblical nonsense is relevant to our personal problems? But I realize no American politician has the courage — at least not since Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln — to be honest with the public about religious nonsense. And here in the benighted Bible Belt we cannot expect much appreciation for reason, clarity, common sense, or honesty. The normal redneck position, like the Muslim position, is on one’s knees with your nose in the posterior of the buy in front of you — like elephants leading one another over the cliff. Oops, sorry. That is for lemmings. Americans are lemmings. It is only a matter of time before some Hitler or Mussolini type comes along with a cross in one hand and a bowl of red-white-blue grits in another to get an overwhelming following.

By Kyra

October 25, 2004 07:29 AM | Link to this

In this election year, it appears that Machiavelli should be revisited. I’m not certain whether either presidential candidate is a deeply religious person. It has a lot to do with the public opinion. I think Bush does a more consistent job in his presentation than Kerry. Kerry seems to not see any contradiction that he is Pro-Choice and is Catholic. Just by that admission, his status as a Catholic is in question.

By Gayle Wright

October 25, 2004 07:46 AM | Link to this

As a moral guide, yes, a president’s religion can assist the president in deciding the course of this nation. But the president’s religion as a key factor in policy making or executing the president’s legal duties is wrong. The president has to be above the religion-only thought train.

This country is made up of Americans who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc. If the president in making national decisions is only thinking of his religion/faith or, more accurately, the lobbyists for his faith, then the president is violating his oath of office.

In conclusion, religion is a moral aid to the president and his staff, but he has to consider his role as a leader of a diverse (like it or not) nation as equally or more important as faith.

By Joe

October 25, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this

Separation of church and state works both ways yet fundamentalists want to be able to meddle in our lives but don’t want us to meddle in theirs. Religion should stay out of government policy. Our country works great because we are a nation governed by secular laws. We’ve seen that countries based on theological law such as Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia only oppress the individual freedoms we cherish, and destroy culture.

Women, for example, in Afghanistan, were denied all their civil rights under the fundamentalist Taliban with threat of life and limb. Thousand year old Buddhist statues, carved into a mountainside were demolished by the Taliban because they went against the prohibition of graven images. This art work is lost forever.

Historically, Christians demolished similar precious carvings on Egyptian temples when they came into power. Many priceless Mayan books were destroyed by the Church when they were discovered because they were seen as works of the devil. Free speech is also threatened as many people lost their lives for speaking or acting against teachings of the church. And such institutions as slavery were accepted by the church because the victims “had no souls”.

Seems far fetched today but once in place such governments cause a frenzy among those devoted to them that blinds all to reason leading to a tyranny and eradication of individual liberties.

As for fundamentalists having little influence in government policy today, that is absolute nonsense. They have way too much. Groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America only exist to lobby and raise millions of dollars for their Christian Fundamentalist causes. They actively bully and threaten politicians to vote their way or face ouster during elections. They relentlessly mobilize their followers to bombard politicians with e-mails, letters and phone calls. In fact, they made it clear that Bush could expect no support from them in November if he did not publically back a Federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. These groups file friend-of-court briefs concerning many social issues being considered by the state and federal courts. They manipulate supreme court justice and other federal or state nominations by insisting that Congress block those they are against and push for the right-wing ones they want to stack the courts in their favor. And they are now pushing to have appointed judges elected so that they can oust the ones that don’t vote their way. To add insult to injury, many have tax-exempt status because of their religious angle, saving them millions to funnel into their political causes.

America needs to wake up and not allow these loud, well financed fundamentalist groups to hijack our government and subvert democracy before it’s too late.

Take the threat seriously. It’s real.

By Terry S.

October 25, 2004 08:28 AM | Link to this

Bush’s evangelical Christianity is most certainly at the foundation of his presidency. Under his administration public policy has been driven more by fear with a false front of equal rights and acceptance-just like the extreme Christian right. His administration has spent thousands of dollars covering the breast of a statue, a work of art that had been in the Capitol without controversy for years. He and his administration consistently flaunt their religous belief while whittling away what protection for God’s Earth had been built into law over the last 30 years. If these weren’t enough, while touting his religion and faith in God, he lied to each and every one of us as he preyed on our sense of insecurity after 9/11 and steered us towards an invasion of Iraq. Even Reagan and his Dad (former President Bush) refused to surround themselves with the extreme right wing “evangelists” that George W. depends upon to make his decisions for him.

It seems to me that Bush is a reformed drug user and alcoholic (public knowledge) that has found religion and is now making us all pay for his misgivings early in his life. Bush’s connection to evangelical Christianity and his continued “holier than thou”/above the law actions that are fundamentally anything but Christian should be alienating the Christian population.

If only they would change the channel from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

By Bob

October 25, 2004 08:34 AM | Link to this

As Shaunti pointed out, all of us base our life decisions on who we are and what we believe. That includes how we would govern and how we vote. You show me a person who would say “I’m a (Christian/Jew/Muslim/Atheist) but my beliefs don’t affect my decisions” and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t have any convictions. It would be like Diane saying “I’m an anti-conservative Christian liberal but I won’t allow my beliefs to shape how I vote, so I;m voting for Bush.

One more thing, I feel sorry for Norman who is forced against his will to live in the Bible Belt where he has to contend with Christians, rednecks and grits. It’s a pity that he’s not allowed to move somewhere else. That is the case, right?

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this

Norman Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, led our nation through the Civil War. On March 30, 1863 President Lincoln, in his Proclamation for a Day of Prayer and Fasting, called the nation to find spiritual strength through prayer:(You can find this in the Libray of Congress) “Whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord: “And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? “We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. “But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. “Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! “It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness… All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessing no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.”

By moveon

October 25, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this

Don’t worry about Norman, Bob. He like to run around making accusations that have no basis, and won’t respond when directly confronted with contrary evidence.

By norman

October 25, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

Foaming at the mouth those Puritan preachers called Jefferson an atheist in the 1800 election, but the people knew bigotry and pharisaism when they heard it. Lincoln used the word God in his speeches but he clearly did not buy normative evangelical nonsense.

I am in the bible belt by choice and I am staying — I will bring at least a few of you benighted ignoramuses to see the light.

By Larry Farlow

October 25, 2004 08:52 AM | Link to this

So Jesus practiced tolerance? Only someone ignorant of Christ’s teachings could make such a statement. Jesus’ teaching were exclusive. He said ‘narrow is the road and few there are who find it.’ (Matthew 7:14) He presented Himself unashamedly as the Son of God the only one through whom salvation comes. It matters not how good we are, how moral we are or what service we give to our country. If we have not Jesus Christ we have not salvation. One arrives at this point of view not as a result of ‘Bible thumping’ but as a result of Bible READING.

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6

By moveon

October 25, 2004 08:54 AM | Link to this

I’m still waiting for someone to counter my previous point that the Civil Rights movement was the product of what would be considered the ‘religious right’ following scriptures (als Martin Luther King), not the national “consensus” that Diane is so fond of.

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 08:55 AM | Link to this

Joe first of all the phrase Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution nor any official document of the U.S. government. Now don’t you think if the founding fathers wanted a true separation that you speak of wouldn’t they have put some sort of language in the constitution specifically? Contrary to your statements the Church did indeed fight against slavery. Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church. As far as the “Fundamentalist” tactics regarding lobbing efforts and the like. Are those that oppose the “Fundamentalist” group using different tactics? Don’t the “liberal” groups also get tax-exempt status saving millions to support their political causes? That’s the rules of the game, both sides play to win.

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

Terry S “If America ever ceases to be a nation under God, we will simply become a nation gone under.” “Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back — with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free.” - Ronald Reagan State of the Union Address, February 4, 1986

By moveon

October 25, 2004 08:58 AM | Link to this

Larry,

Go take a look at the theological discussion twoard the end of the last discussion. Then come back and talk about this.

If there is a truth and you tell people the truth, how is that exclusive? The point you are trying to make would be like arguing we shouldn’t teach kids that 2+2=4 because that’s not tolerant.

By Van

October 25, 2004 09:06 AM | Link to this

We all make decisions based on our upbringing, influence from our parents, our religious background, life experiences and other outside sources.

To say you can not use any or all to make important decisions is just plain nuts.

All these, and more, make up the whole person.

By norman

October 25, 2004 09:08 AM | Link to this

Do you right wing Nazi Facists ever stop? There is no reason anyone should argue with me because I am never wrong. Why should anyone one of you inbred toothless hicks dare to speak to me? I am the only rational voice of mainstream thought on this site and should be the moral monitor and sole dissemiator of information.

Boscoe, if you get divorced, is she still your sister?

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this

Norman, Lincoln gave a Proclamation for a Day of Prayer and Fasting. You are implying he only used the word “God” but didn’t believe it? Norman you need some serious counseling, anybody can see what this proclamation represents. If any current politician did this it would create such a media blitz nobody would be able to escape it.

By Lyrazel

October 25, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

I cant name a President who did not have faith that he listened to during years in the Presidency especially in time of war or crisis.

Faith is good for the soul and its comforting to know when someone gains a position of supreme power they are capable of humble prayer but they must also competent enough to listen to their advisors and plan directives for a nation that are based on fact not faith such as economics or health, or engaging military into battle away from Americas shores. A president does not “go it alone” and when they become so cavalier with their advisors by ignoring them ‘because god spoke’ they are capable of becoming crusaders and imposing morality and rightiousness. In this global world it is no longer just Americans being called to follow this mans faith, and the concequence of a wrong interpretation of ‘what god spoke’ can be catastropic. A President should be elected for their ability to work with others, like senators, congress, governors and the military and even the faithless.

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 09:23 AM | Link to this

I would like to apologize to all those who comment on this forum for Norman. You see, Norman was picked on a lot when he was in school and never got over it. So now he hates everybody. The amusing part for us though is when Norman is confronted on his ideology rather than support his arguments with reason and logic (the very thing he accuses us of not having) he gets defensive and utters statements about how all of us are toothless morons, or we’ve married our sisters. Maybe we should listen to Norman. Norman actually told me he was an Ivy league college professor and has a degree. Unfortunately Norman I live in the Ivy league region and I have yet to find your name associated with any of these schools. Besides, it’s rather plain to see that if you had the qualifications that you speak of we could expect to see language befitting man with your education.

By norman

October 25, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

I did not send all those posts under my name, one of you rednecks is playing tricks. But no matter, you all make good cannon fodder for Fascist wars.

Boscoe: stick your head you know where!

By moveon

October 25, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this

Norman, I think we all find that a little hard to believe. The tone and speech pattern in all the posts under your name are the same.

Why don’t you post something resembling an intelligent, coherent argument and then come talk to us.

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

It’s funny to watch the anti-Christians at work. First, they pretend that the sky will fall if ANY Christian belief is even considered - much less adopted. Then, once they have their ficticious scenarios created - they set out to pretend they are saving us all from the wrath of the oppressive Christians!

And why Christians? Simple - Christians don’t fight back. You couldn’t pay one of the anti-Christian cowards to come out here and ridicule Jews and Muslims they way they do Christians! But they’ll come out here with their hatred for Christians in full throttle, with all their juvenile pretenses of “Separation of Church and State” and any other nonsense within arms-reach - to try and beat-up on the Christians who aren’t harming anyone.

They’re little insecure people who’ve found someone they can pick on - that won’t fight back. Pathetic little beings!

By norman

October 25, 2004 10:13 AM | Link to this

There once was a Christian named Boscoe, Who was entranced by viewing a fresco, He baptized a flea While taking a pee, And was worshipped thereafter in Moscow.

A Muslim named Musa Ibn Saud Was bowing and praying so loud, His asphyxiated Boscoe As he genuflected in Moscow Which attracted a worshipful crowd.

By AT

October 25, 2004 10:16 AM | Link to this

Quite frankly, the ignoramuses are the people who actually believe for one second that Bush’s faith is the driving force of his policy decisions.

Bush—like Kerry, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy and just about any other powerful politician you can think of—has lived his entire adult life in pursuit of money, fame, and power.

And he, like many others, did this under the guise of “public service.” You don’t get to the top by being a nice guy…or by being moral.

Bush’s public display of faith his faith is a mere political appeasement to his biggest influences: big money conservatives and the ultra-conservative Christian right.

I’m not surprised that a so-called “educated public” would be fooled.

By Melissa

October 25, 2004 10:29 AM | Link to this

Terry, your post sounds EXACTLY like what all of you christians are now currently doing to homosexuals!!

Hey pot, guess what?? You are BLACK!!!! Typical hypocrit!!

By Larry

October 25, 2004 10:36 AM | Link to this

“Larry,

Go take a look at the theological discussion twoard the end of the last discussion. Then come back and talk about this.

If there is a truth and you tell people the truth, how is that exclusive? The point you are trying to make would be like arguing we shouldn’t teach kids that 2+2=4 because that’s not tolerant.”

And you should ‘go take a look’ at my post a few more times. I’ve read this numerous times and quite frankly don’t get your point. First you argue that teaching the truth is NOT an example of exclusivity then you take me to task for opposing the teaching of absolute truth (where that came from based on my post I have NO clue). The truth is ALWAYS exclusive, always narrow, by definition. As you say, 2+2 is ALWAYS 4 no matter what, that’s pretty exclusive. Jesus Christ is always and forever the one and only Son of God and the one and only way to heaven, again, an exclusive claim. Maybe you don’t understand the term ‘exclusive’. It doesn’t just mean ‘high class’ as its commonly used today but also means ‘unique’ or ‘without peer’, both of which are true of Jesus Christ. It’s the liberals (both theologically & socially) who would claim we should avoid truth because it’s not tolerant. I did not make that point and do not believe that. How you could even get that idea from my post is beyond me. Perhaps there’s another “Larry” posting on here?? Absolute truth exists and should be taught whether its in mathematics or scripture. Its the tolerance hysteria in our culture that opposes absolute truth being taught, not me.

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

Norman do you find it any wonder why women don’t like you?

By Archie

October 25, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

I do not think the president should use his faith as a guide for making national policy decisions because the American people don’t believe in the same thing religiously. President Bush has misquoted scripture and he has had one guy to lie on him, i.e., Pat Roberson. With that combination I think the president should let his religion be a personal thing but do his job in a professional manner. Beliefs are why we elect one guy over the other but much care has to be taken when national policy decisions and religion is not the most objective thing going.

By Brenda

October 25, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this

Once again, we cannot have any type of comment or rebuttal from the left without raising the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin. I assume no one in this country can have a firm belief in anything anymore without being called a facist or hate monger. In the words of the country song (yes Norman, a benighted, toothless, ignorant country song) “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll stand for anything.” In this country I am very afraid that we are reaching the point of being ashamed of our beliefs, and when the silent majority truly becomes silent, the republic will fall.

By Chet

October 25, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

As usual, the original question seems to have gotten lost in the smoke.

Every president is going to use their faith (whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Humanist, etc. ) as a guide, but they need to tell the people in advance what that faith is. If the nation as a whole does not approve, they have the option of voting for someone else.

Jimmy Carter and Georgie W. both were up front and honest about their convictions and they were both elected because the nation as a whole approved of what they heard and saw.

By Ted Burnham

October 25, 2004 10:53 AM | Link to this

Diane wrote, “Our legal system rests on dispensing justice derived from facts and objectivity, on fairness and law.”

Fact: Jesus Christ lived on earth 2000 years ago. Fact: Jesus Christ claimed to be God. Fact: Jesus Christ claimed to be the only way to the Father. Fact: Jesus Christ was NOT just a good moral teacher.

CS Lewis said it best:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.� That is the one thing we must not say. A man who is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Mere Christianity [New York: Touchstone, 1996] 56).

So, who is Jesus Christ? George W. Bush has a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe, Jesus Christ. I would say that what Christ wrote is a good guide in pratical and govermental matters.

By moveon

October 25, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Larry,

I fully understand the term “exclusive”, what I missed was your point in discussing that. Yes, it is the Truth, and an absolute truth. Christianity is also the most inclusive faith because you just need to accept the one Truth and that single exclusive ideal. It doesn’t matter where you come from or what you’ve done. But we both know that, and I aplogize for any confusion on the subject.

By Bob

October 25, 2004 10:57 AM | Link to this

Moveon— you’ll have to wait a long time for anyone to counter your statement that the Civil Rights movement was a result of religious belief…because it clearly was. Just like the Founding Fathers, Dr King believed that ” All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” Dr. King saw that African Americans were being denied their basic human rights— rights given them by God, not government. So, was Dr. King wrong in acting on his deeply-held religious beliefs? Of course not, because he had the strength of his convictions and the courage to act on them. That’s no different from George Bush, or John Kerry, or conservative Christians, or liberal Christians, or any other religious or non-religious group expressing its deeply-held beliefs through action. The beauty of our Constitution is that it expresses the ideal that government should be officially neutral toward religion. Our Founding Fathers could certainly have set up an official state religion and required everyone to pay homage to it. And if they had so chosen, it undoubtably would have been Christianity. They chose not to. That doesn’t mean they were hostile toward Christianity or any other religion. That also doesn’t mean they believed it was wrong for anyone to freely express his/her religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs and to be guided by those beliefs. Neutrality means the government should neither encourage nor hinder religious belief. That means everyone from atheists to fundamentalists, conservatives to liberals has every right to express his/her views and campaign for, raise money for and vote for candidates who share those beliefs. It’s only if conservative Chistians do the same thing as everyone else that they are accused of “forcing” their beliefs on everyone else. No one accuses the National Abortion Rights Action League of “forcing” its beliefs on everyone when it lobbys for tax money to pay for abortions, even though many taxpayers undoubtably object to having money taken out of their paychecks to pay for abortions.

Fact is, in today’s world the only governments that practice intolerance of other viewpoints—the only governments that actively persecute anyone having a different religion from the “official religion” are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and atheist governments like Communist China. The fact is that “Christian” or nominably Christian governments around the world allow people to have different religions and beliefs. And don’t bring up the Crusades or some other event from hundreds of years ago… I’m talking about today’s world. So, who’s being intolerant here?

By Adrienne

October 25, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

It is essential to have faith drive thoughts - but it is un-American to impose certain beliefs on every citizen through laws. Plus, when politicians hide behind a religious platform - this leads me to believe they can not made educated intelligent decisions. It also leaves them wide open for contradictions, religion (not spirituality) is full of contradictions. Ie - those women conservatives wanting to ban stem cell research are not exactly rushing out and carrying these “stem cells” to term. Environment - Mercury levels are the highest that they’ve ever been. Women with high mercury levels put fetuses at risk of birth defects. We may thank Bush for striking a law that would mandate companies to clean 90% of their by-product waste, which in turn would decrease the level of Mercury in fresh water fish. (Mind you this law saved big bucks for the companies…these companies support Bush - guess he truly beleives in the eye for an eye rheteric). I am so against Bush at this point, that it truly breaks my heart that people vote for him based on BLIND faith. Folks open your eyes…Bush is killing us!

By Adrienne

October 25, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this

I’d be interested in hearing how many of you at work stop before making a crucial business decision and say, “What Would Jesus Do?”

Our shareholders expect $, and I have to deliver or else I lose my job. As a conservative, I don’t believe in welfare, therefore I actually need this job to support my wife/husband, SUV gas guzzler and children going to private school, and of course 10% tithes to my church. But I’m going to go out on a limb and do the morally correct thing according to Jesus.

By E. Lewis

October 25, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

If the President feels that his religious beliefs are to be the only guide in policy decisions, then perhaps he should find another line of work. Something in a religious field, become a preacher even. Then he can rule by any code he wants, but the rest of us will have the choice not to.

By moveon

October 25, 2004 11:41 AM | Link to this

Adrienne,

I don’t break the law or bend the rules at my job. Do I have to stop before I make every desicion and wonder what the right choice is? No.

Do you honestly think that people run around breaking the law or voilating ethics decisions to make a buck for their family? Yes, some people do. I do not, nor do I want anyone like that working for me. Look at Chik-fil-A, how that company is run and their bottom line.

Are you saying that people who don’t ascribe to Christianity break the law for more profits for the company, or that they don’t, and don’t worry about it because they have the saftey net of welfare?

The question doesn’t make any sense, because I don’t see any CEO, CFO, or even manager being able to justify firing someone for NOT breaking the law, or for doing the right thing.

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this

Melissa,

I must have missed something. Last night when I went to bed - I was not a Christian. And when I woke this morning - I am still not.

And what is it again that “we” Christians are doing to homosexuals? I am dying to know…!

By DJS

October 25, 2004 12:48 PM | Link to this

RS states that Jesus practiced tolerance. RS is correct in that statement. RS also correctly states that lovign, caring individuals who are not Christians are fighting and working in Iraq to improve that nation.

However, I must addess RS’s comment on Jesus Christ. Christ didn’t badger or belittle people who didn’t readily accept his teachings (although some may disagree with his condemnations of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy). RS is correct when certain Christians in their zeal and passion for their faith cross the line for appropriate behavior and discourse in a civil society. Christ practiced tolerance by being respectful towards all individuals, gently attempting to guide them towards truth, even when some of those individuals decided it would be best that he should die for the good of the nation. However, at no point, as best exhibited in driving the money changers from the temple grounds, or the Samaritan woman, or the harlot the Pharisees sought to stone did he tolerate sinful behavior of any one. Tolerance doesn’t mean simply acquiessing and allowing behavior that in the Christian worldview is considered sinful to simply blossom and grow with out opposing it.

What I want to know is what exactly does RS mean by Jesus practicing tolerance, because that reveals a lot about the intertwining of RS’s faith and worldview? Does RS know that in the Gospel of John, Jesus states, “I am the way, the truth, and the light” in opposition to all other world religions? Or, does RS believe that Jesus simply believed in let’s all go along and get long, and sit in a circle smoking our native American peacepipe while singing Kumbaya?

Christ stated that his teaching is hard to accept. Usually, those who preach tolerance usually are unable to tolerate the hard truths of the teachings of Christ. So they reveal their intolerance by resorting to calling Christians hatefilled, bigoted bible thumpers by referring to the bad example of a few, when Christians make a firm stand for their beliefs.

By Meredith

October 25, 2004 12:58 PM | Link to this

Religion, like sex, belongs outside of the political realm and outside of the business of the White House. Religion is a means for people to gather with a common faith to pray and help others. It is not a soapbox to argue law and politics, though many use it to that effect. The President’s faith, is not necessarily my own and many other good, hard working Americans. His religion, as with my neighbor’s, or mine, should not be the measure in this country to what is right and wrong. The law, based on the ethics of laws and traditions are what should make the decisions of the land. What’s more, to separate ourselves so far from the reason we fought so hard for our own land, for the freedom of religion and to make our own destiny individually, should scare each and every one of us. In these times of job loss and low economy, we need to stick together as a country and a people, not separate into religions. The words being said and the actions being taken are scary to anyone who has done the least bit of studying on how religious and racial persecution has come about. Our very own way of life is in the the hands of the White House and we cannot label it by religion. As Americans we have a right to practice as we please, therefore, our elected spokesperson to the world, should not label us with one religion to rule our ethical codes.

By Adrienne

October 25, 2004 01:46 PM | Link to this

Moveon My anecdotal spoof goes to show that we need to make decisions based on the interests of the enterprise that we represent. Yes, we adhere to ethics - but these ethics do not necessarily tie 100% into Jesus’s teachings. I feel that Bush claims to make decisions based on his faith - news flash…Mr. Bush, you need to make decisions based on the enterprise = USA. For example, stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage. Bush’s platform for these issues ties into his beliefs based on the bible. There is a true difference between ethics and Bible rules. These are truly non-issues that the PEOPLE need to decide, not this texan, southern, conservative, man needs to decide. Furthermore, his platform seems very “all or nothing based” on these bible rules.

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

I hope AJC will keep this topic on the boards from here on out! Reading some of this stuff is hilarious! Dead serious.

If you decided to paint your house and someone suggested a particular color - would it matter where their idea for the color came FROM…? It’s as if everyone under the sun can have an idea or viewpoint that MUST be allowed in the arena of political debate - except Christians. Christian’s ideas and views have to be automatically rejected because their views come FROM their religion? Their views and ideas should be considered just like any others - based on the merit of the ideas themselves, not on their origin.

How do some of you folks call yourself “inclusive”…? Do you think that over 3/4ths of all american citizens should not be allowed to express their views in the political arena? Whether you realize it or not - that’s exactly what you’re saying! Any ideas that Christians bring to the table - you say they must be rejected because they come FROM their religious views. 75 to 80 percent of Americans should have their views automatically discounted? And so by default, only the 20% or so of Americans are the only ones to have a voice in determining the laws of our country? THIS is called a “Democracy”…?

Or is it another way. Should we seek to deliberately make all laws contradictory to the Bible? That is to say, if we find that the Bible opposes Fathers making love to their sons - are we then required to make laws allowing Father/Son relationships so that we make sure we are NOT obeying the Bible? I guess so, otherwise, in the convoluted thinking of so many, it would appear that we are allowing religion to enter politics!

We’ve got group after group out here trying to make their views - the law. But let a Christian join in and many people start flopping around like a fish out of water!

By moveon

October 25, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Adrienne,

I was showing you how you can be in accordance with both; it’s when they are in conflict that you have to decide which you want to honor. Bush and Kerry can run on anything they want, and it’s up to the people do decide which one we want to lead, and that decision is made Nov. 2.

All ethical decision can be traced back to some tenant of a faith. There is no underlying moral code that is without some ideal behind it.

Furthermore, it was the faiths of Kennedy, King, etc. who went against the ‘enterprise’ and did what was ‘right’ based on their faith. The 1960’s were not a peaceful time, and I don’t know how any of that could have been considered “in the best interest” of the country to be so divided then, especially in a time of war.

Why make heroes out of people that went against the long standing rules governing the ‘enterprise’ of the USA 40 years ago and vilify them now?

By Bob

October 25, 2004 02:00 PM | Link to this

Again, I believe the original question was “Is it appropriate for a President to use his faith as a guide for making national policy decisions?” If he forces others to adopt his particular beliefs then the answer is clearly No. But if he bases policy decisions on his worldview, on his deeply-held beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, on what he feels in his gut, on what he feels is in the best interests of the American people, how can that NOT include whatever faith beliefs he might hold? What possible other basis would he have to make any decisions?

By Debora

October 25, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

A woman I work with is very involved in the church. She is a great person, I will not take that away from her. However, she believes that we should have one national religion, Christianity. All other religions should be abolished and made illegal by federal law. She believes that our country was founded on Christianity and that by allowing all of these other religions to inter-mingle that we have watered down the Christian values of our country and caused God to turn his head away from our country. She does not believe that our country allows for other religions other than Christianity. She states that allowing all other religions is not what the constitution was meant to say, only that there should be religious freedom about which Christian denomination you choose to join. She is not sure what to do about people that already live in the US that are not of the Christian faith, other than believing that they should not be legally allowed to participate in their faith. She believes that people who are not Christian should not be allowed into the US. I myself am a Christian but I certainly do not agree with this nonsense. I do not have the audacity to speak for Jesus, but I doubt by force and lack of choice is how he wants people to believe in his teachings. Frightening that there are others who do. Is this where our country is going?

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

Debora,

There are ‘some’ people who will think anything. You point to one person you know and then suggest “others” feel the same way. There are some people who think we should all go nude, should we start sounding the alarms and running for cover? Is our nation in instant peril?

The overwhelming vast majority of Christians do not believe we should have a “national religion”. Please.

By moveon

October 25, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Good point Terry.

I happen to work with a couple of guys who think that Pot should be legal and that the environmental laws are way to relaxed. I had a conversation with one of them about how 15 people died while they were trying to move a habitat for 10 birds so they could build an intersection.

He thought that was fine. He said, “There are billions of people, and those birds are endangered, so who cares about the people.”

Funny thing is, these guys drive SUV’s, too. Should we be worried that environementalists are going to let people die so animals can live? I don’t think so.

By Bob

October 25, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

Debora— the Founding Fathers would strongly disagree with the intolerance shown by this woman you refer to in your post. So would the vast majority of Christians living in this country. The fact is that if Christians really wanted to make the U.S. a “Christian nation” where other religions and viewpoints were not allowed they could have easily done it at any time over the past 200 years. And still could. I don’t think Christians have any other desire but to freely worship God and to freely express their beliefs in the public arena… in other words, the same rights as everybody else.

By Roy Zemlock

October 25, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this

Wonderful Commentary!

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

I just realized something - The Bible prohibits murder and theft. We better repeal laws against murder and theft - otherwise we’re mixing religion and politics!

By Bob

October 25, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

Watch out, Terry! You’ll get Norman all stirred up and he’ll come out with another thoughtful commentary about right wing-Nazi-Fascist-redneck-Christians who eat grits!

By Debora

October 25, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this

Terry

The disdain of murder and theft and human values not Christian values. I know of no Jews, Buddists, or any other religion, that condones murder and theft.

By Jennifer Jones

October 25, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

One comment that has been repeated more than once in this posting is that the people of the United States voted for George Bush, whether it be because of/or in-spite of his beliefs. First of all, the popular vote did not go to George Bush, which means the majority of American’s didn’t vote for him for whatever reason. Secondly, I voted for George Bush and if had I realized that he would turn his presidency into a religious calling I would have reconsidered, in-spite of the fact that I myself am a Christian. What has happened in this country when the words Christian and liberal cannot be used in the same sentence without demeaning one or criticizing the other? Intolerance. Religion belongs in the church not in our government and our offices and in our schools. For those of you who cry foul because without religion where is morality, morality does not have to be based on religion, instead, if you believe that all men are created equal, it can be based on the common good of mankind. What George Bush does is not based on the common good of mankind…it’s based on the common good of his and his cronies bottom line…and the fact that he can do it in the name of a born again Christian is just icing on the cake, a blinder for the far rights eyes. For you people who believe that there is one truth and one truth only, that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God then what makes you different from any other fundamentalist, intolerant religion out there? I also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God, but I believe too that God gave us intelligence, though it was because Adam & Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we have it for a reason… to be logical, compassionate people, to understand that we live in a finite world where our presence is constantly endangering the balance…to understand our place in this world…but leave it to a Right Wing Christian to expect God to take care of everything and refute the fact of Global Warming and the tenants of science. So should our leaders use religion in forming national policy? No, they should use common sense and when the American people are faced with an ignorant, incompetent leader they should use their common sense and get him out of office. Today, in the United States, religion is just another way to say intolerance, and there is no room for intolerance in a diverse society.

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 02:58 PM | Link to this

Debora,

It doesn’t matter who doesn’t “condone” murder. The simple fact is, The Bible is against murder and if our laws contain anything that can be said is in agreement with religious beliefs - it has to go! We have a “Separation of Church and State” to uphold here. Otherwise it can be said that the religious folks are “forcing their religion down someone’s throat”…!

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this

Jennifer,

Can you name one religious belief that President Bush has “forced” on the nation…?

By Boscoe Roads

October 25, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

Jennifer, if religion is another way to say intolerance are you an intolerant person because by your own admission you are a Christian

By Addai

October 25, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this

It’s so funny how this topic is even a basis for a debate. Diane you seem to have more sense, obviously.Plain and simple if this country was run by presidents and their so called beliefs, this world will be worse than it is now. We have elected presidents who were racist(Johnson)others who obviously didnt believe in the foundation of family(clinton, Kennedy) and countless other bigots. Were these not preached against in the bible? Bush uses his faith when it suits him. Sending men and women to die in a worthless battle doesnt make him smart. Presidents were chosen to rule with an iron fist, with that said they need to put their bias beliefs aside and stick with the facts

By moveon

October 25, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this

Clinton in 1996 & 1992 Carter in 1976 Nixon in 1968 Kennedy in 1960 Truman in 1948 Wilson in 1916 & 1912

A list of President’s in the 20th century that didn’t get 50% of the popular vote. For some reason, more people voted AGAINST these presidents, but where was the outcry?

By Terry M. Adams

October 25, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this

Addai brings a new twist into this comedy. He complains that those who are religious - are not bringing ALL their religious views in to play.

And at the same time - they need to put their “bias” beliefs aside. I was under the impression that anyone’s beliefs were “bias”. If a personal belief is not a “biased” one - how can it be a “personal” belief?

He then takes it a step further. Someone is supposed to put their “bias” beliefs (personal) aside and stick to the “facts”. What are the “facts” - someone else’s beliefs?

We can only conclude that the moral to the story is: A Leader must do as others think so as not to let his own ideas get in the way of doing what is right, which is of course what someone else thinks. This trait is the mark of a good “Leader”.

By Randy

October 25, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

99% of Christians I know and almost everybody I know is Christian, have no intention of trying to infringe on others rights. They just want to be left alone to worship the Creator of this world. One other note: you can mention any religion in the world, you can say God bless etc and you get no response. However, if you mention the word “Jesus” you get a emotional response from people, both Christian and non-christian. If Jesus wasn’t the son of God, it would be the same emotional response as saying “The Easter Bunny” or the “Tooth Fairy”. This is one way, my belief in Jesus is affirmed. Test it! Look at the response “Norman” has!

By Denise

October 25, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

I think that people are becoming anxious because they are trying to push the separation of state and cHurch thing. The president allowing his faith to lead him is the same as someone saying that their instincts/intuitions lead them to say or do something in a certain way. He is not trying to bring the church into play here. Your faith is not religion or the church. It is something that you live by and is something that your life is built on. The church or religion has nothing to do with faith, your total acceptance of what God has planned for you and your life. IF this is hard to take in or understand, that is not unusual.

By Vincent

October 25, 2004 06:11 PM | Link to this

Appropriate to use his faith…? Over the last four years, most of us have done our best to put our faith in our President. Is that appropriate? Also, why is the question “his”? Very controlling not to use “his or her.” Many will jump on the bandwagon, there has never been a woman president, there is no woman on the ticket this time around… Very convenient, isn’t it?

One hopes the President governs based on principles for the greater good of the citizens. But, as in any industry, not everyone is going to like every decision.

Very interesting scenario in today’s news. Pat Robertson continues to speak out against Bush being re-appointed, I mean, re-elected, and the UN announced that the WMD’s (380 tons of it) we couldn’t find, that we’re told today has been under US Military Protection since March 2003, are now…. missing? (Dare I say flip-flopping? No, I’ll pass) While Bush may be a wonderful, and heart felt Christian (which is a very good thing), the practice of “you’re with us or with the terrorists”, “you want a democracy or you want Saddam”, “you want God or the Devil”, plays nicely at a pulled pork bbq to an audience of backyard dunces, it means nothing more than garble around the world.

Sadly, this country is educated by the media. We’ll believe anything if its here, in the paper, or on tv. And, even sadder, bigotry, hatred, insulting people with opposing points of view is acceptable when it’s backed by religion.

You know, there are a few more religions other than Christianity on the planet. And, there are people who do not think God is it. They have their own divine makers. So, personal walks with your higher power are very important. Having a remote understanding of other cultures and religions is critical.

This was ignored last week, and I assume it will be ignored again, but the woman’s right to have an abortion was legal, socially acceptable and not frowned upon until the mid 1800’s. But, that is always glossed over during the speeches of restoring America as our forefathers created it.

As Ron Reagan, Jr. said it best, “The Christian Conservative base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of themâ€â€?”partial birth” abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It’s not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it’s unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain.”

At the funeral for his father, Ron Reagan, Jr. said, “Dad was .. a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.”

So, to answer the question… yes, it is appropriate and almost expected. How it is appropriated is the difference.

By the way, since we want to go back to the good old days, I think we should do it right… Let’s not only put homo’s back in the closet and keep women at home, let’s open up God’s Word and REALLY do what The Bible says we are supposed to do: No more shellfish eating; throw out those wool and cotton blend jackets; be sure to ask any woman you plant to shake hands with if she is menstrating first; do not go to church is your vision is less than 20/20; men are no longer allowed to cut their hair (anywhere); and finally, we must put an end to any establishment open for business on Sundays (that is a HUGE no-no)

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 08:33 AM | Link to this

Vincent what’s your point? And, even sadder, bigotry, hatred, insulting people with opposing points of view is acceptable when it’s backed by religion. Why is it this same type of bigotry, hatred, and insults when directed AT religion are swept under the rug? Connecticut created a law in 1812 outlawing abortion. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision the court says that the law before that time was not clear on whether abortion was legal before 1812. Since the U.S. really didn’t get it’s start until the late 1700s it’s reasonable safe to say that abortion has always been illegal until 1973. As far as following the Bible to the letter you should understand it before you say the foolish things you did.

By AllaboutME

October 26, 2004 08:35 AM | Link to this

…yes…Vincent, there would NOT be santa claus…but remember christ was a jew and an orthodox one…so there’s no pork-pulling bbqs anymore…(o whats sonny perdue to do!) what a sad sorry fate…especially for friday night television viewer…and there is the sad sorry fact most christians dont want more government control of their lives…dont want mr. prez telling them to do this or that…and certainly…when we start living like the amish we wouldnt know what to do with all those size 12 bustiers…and revlon would go bankrupt….truth is, even with all the thumping…so few christians in america actually want…a biblical based life or would know how to lead it…course it dont stop some of them from telling us how wrong we are…which is one of the benefits of being christian…being able to tell everyone else how wrong they are…does it matter if a prez uses his internal chats with god to guide his nation into war, poverty and disrepair (where’s that buget for repairing america’s aging intrastructures…nah god says…lets not hire more cops and firemen lets get homeland security to hire more airport clerks at minimum wage and they’ll stop terror at the airports)…remember way back when when saddam sent scuds to israel…they all had gas masks…do americans all have gas masks…nah we have duct tape and plastic sheeting…we dont have flu vaccines so if some bio-terror comes about…well we have heafty arses to kiss good by….and…now that we can buy assault weapons…arent we more likely to be shot by some meth-head with an uzi than a dirty foreign terrorist…yeah…roll me up in duct tape…I really wish god talked to me too…

By moveon

October 26, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this

Vincent,

The only thing worth commenting on in your post is the 380 million tons of weapons. NBC reported that they had a reporter embedded when the troops got there and the weapons were already gone in April of 2003. For the IAEA (a supposed a politcal group) to release the infromation now, after a disagreement with Bush on other matters, is highly suspect. Get all the facts straight first.

Your rant’s about ‘going back to the way things were’ shows a nice picture of Orthodox Judiasm, which if you actually read The Bible, isn’t what Christians have to follow.

The abortion question is about protecting a child. If you can be punished for disturbing the nest of an endangered bird and removing it’s eggs, why doesn’t an unborn child have the same protection as a bird?

By Elaine

October 26, 2004 09:22 AM | Link to this

IF YOU DON’T STAND FOR SOMETHING, THEN YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING!!!!!

Obviously there are a lot of people in our country today who don’t stand for or believe in anything. Thus, they will fall for whatever the media puts out there for them. They are too lazy to read, to learn and research for themselves. Take for instance yourself Ms. Glass. You completely misuse and have abused the scripture that you used in your article. I wish that I had the time to go through your article sentence by sentence.

Our country was founded on Christian principles but which also gave people the right to religious freedom. When you believe in something if you truly believe, then it helps shape who you are, your ethics and integrity, your thoughts and choices. How can you seperate that from yourself if you truly believe in what you say you do. That is part of what I like about our President. He is a man of his word, he is honest, and has shown good decent moral integrity. He and his wife have restored honor to our Presidency. Do we really want another President who goes through all the motions but then who has no morals and who talks out of both sides of his mouth. I may not always agree with a person’s religion but if they were in office and practiced what they believe and were of such high morals, honesty and integrity then I would have respect for them. Besides, again on the abortion issue, who looks out for the child, for the helpless?

It is so easy to take something out of context and to try to make those who don’t know the whole book to think it is something terrible. Liberals are real good at that. They want to scare people so they take and do this with the Bible all the time. You obviously don’t know the whole truth of God’s word. Shame on you for doing this! The New Age, left wing liberals want each individual to feel so good and self important by espousing the belief that “I” am all that matters. John Kerry himself has used scripture to describe President Bush as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s always amazed me how liberals use scripture to degrade people and scare them. They know and don’t believe yet they use it to manipulate others. Just because liberals are so wishy-washy, flip-floppers, or whatever today’s new phrase is doesn’t mean that you can walk all over people with such utter disdain and disrespect. I think that you show great disrespect and dumbing down of people when you do this. Ya’ll only wish that you had something to believe in, something more than a President like Bill Clinton who now to this day has our young people thinking that oral sex is not sex and is okay since he got away with it. A would be president such as John Kerry who is a step above Bill Clinton to be sure but who speaks to the audience for the moment and who tickles people’s ears with what he believe they want or need to hear to vote for him. Such a man as this is not to be trusted. Kerry makes a crowd feel good and gets them pumped up but to be sure most of it is “false hope” and that is what the democratice ticket amounts to: Kerry + Edwards = false hope…

So yes, I will take a man like George W. Bush and his esteemed wife Laura anyday, a man who believes in something and sticks by it, a man who believes something that has set him apart with such love, care, integrity, morals. A MAN WHO ISN’T TOSSED ABOUT BY THE WIND…….

By Mohinder L. Jerath, Ph.D.

October 26, 2004 10:08 AM | Link to this

There is faith and there is divine religious mandate and being the messenger of his God to do the right thing, and make fraud war on Iraq with false and fabricated evidence, use propaganda of teror hype, fomentation hate, fear and republican patriotic fodder to control the hearts and minds of a misled and gullible nation. The born again for gain faith is nothing more then snake oil salesman and these hypocrite conservative republicans, people of the lie, malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoaters, uncorrectable grab baggers, scarificing others with coercion, guiltless and reckless abondon to promote and preserve their outward, hypocrite self image good and prefection is beyond any good measure of faith. Along with their faith song and dance is their basic control freak flaw, highest divorce rate, failed marriages, spousal abuse, incest, unsatisfied wives that stray like rabits. These Sunday Christians hypocrites do not need faith but rather a dose or reality for their policies of inequity and rights for their like minded kind only.

By Mohinder L. Jerath, Ph.D.

October 26, 2004 10:10 AM | Link to this

There is faith and there is divine religious mandate and being the messenger of his God to do the right thing, and make fraud war on Iraq with false and fabricated evidence, use propaganda of teror hype, fomentation hate, fear and republican patriotic fodder to control the hearts and minds of a misled and gullible nation. The born again for gain faith is nothing more then snake oil salesman and these hypocrite conservative republicans, people of the lie, malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoaters, uncorrectable grab baggers, scarificing others with coercion, guiltless and reckless abondon to promote and preserve their outward, hypocrite self image good and prefection is beyond any good measure of faith. Along with their faith song and dance is their basic control freak flaw, highest divorce rate, failed marriages, spousal abuse, incest, unsatisfied wives that stray like rabits. These Sunday Christians hypocrites do not need faith but rather a dose of reality for their policies of inequity and rights for their like minded kind only.

By Vincent

October 26, 2004 10:20 AM | Link to this

What was my point? My point is that religious convictions need to be a personal relationship between whomever and their higher power. That the division of church and state needs to remain that way. A president who uses personal religious belief as a platform against gay marriage and abortion is innappropriate.

And the last part of my posting was not a campaign to abolish shellfish or wool/cotton blends, it was to show how ridiculous life would be if we actually adhered to everything in the old testament. My point is that I am tired of bible thumpers deciding which part of the bible they want to quote as a means for social change, and IGNORING the other quotable chapters. If we are going to live by the word of the Bible, then we need to live by every word, not just the words that some people choose.

Moveon, get your facts straight before suggesting someone else does so. (Very credible to, as you don’t announce even a your name, unless moveon is on your birtch certificate, my apologies) You need to read official statements from any .gov website.

And, did everyone in this town lose their sense of humor?

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

Any president is free to use whatever values, philosophy, or faith he holds to guide him in making his decisions.

I just hope that he (or she) also uses good judgment and listens to sound advice… such as respecting the beliefs of others and not trying to make his own particular faith into law. Any president who can’t understand that much about the Constitution has no business occupying the Oval Office.

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

So, Mohinder L. Jerath, Ph.D., what basis do you have for these statistics you quote other than your own unbiased, professional, superior viewpoint?

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 11:51 AM | Link to this

Vincent, why is it inappropriate for a president to use personal religious beliefs as a platform against gay marriage and abortion? Don’t tell me it’s about a separation of Church and State because that phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or ANY official government document. Nor does the Establishment Clause even hint at the suggestion of such a thing. As far as using the Bible to show how ridicules it would be if we followed it to the letter only shows how ignorant you are of the subject matter. You compare homosexual activity to eating shellfish? Neither is even used in the same context in the Bible. Of course religion is foolish to you it’s obvious you take no steps whatsoever to even understand it before you criticize.

By Dave

October 26, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this

Dr. Jerath … excellent string of observations but, your comments will be beyond the ability of religious zealots to see, much less acknowledge, the point(s) you are making.

Religious zealots are content with being used by politicians in their (the zealots) drive to push their political agenda (beliefs) onto others. It is obvious to me that they are willing to go to bed with Satan as long as Satan adopts their agenda.

Religious zealots have forgotten, or do not wish to remember, that many (not all) of the early settlers to this new land sought refuge from climates/governments which forced beliefs upon them which were not their own. And, now, these zealots want to impose the same restrictions onto all others in America via government office holders (who shamelessly use them) as was done in the past by the heads of state in other countries, mostly European.

No longer is it good enough to be a Christian or, simply, religious. One must be a fundamentalist and espouse strident propaganda to influence (force) all others to their side. You’re not good enough unless you have fish icons and/or religious bumper stickers on your cars.

I remember one episode of Jerry Falwell’s program, years ago, in which he, in a jokingly sort of way, blamed the Baptists for demanding separation of church and state during the meetings/conventions over the writing of the Constitution of the United States. By his comments, it appeared to me that the Baptists were small in number at that time and didn’t want to be limited or influenced by a government which had a national religion which might be in conflict with their own. Today, now that they are big in numbers and have way too much influence in government, they want the federal government and state governments to lean to their version of Christianity.

Water can be a good thing, a necessity in fact. But, too much water can be very harmful: floods, treading water in the middle of the ocean. Religion is the same. Taken in small or moderate doses, it can be a good thing. Too much and you’ll drown in it. That is not a good thing.

I see nothing wrong with politicians expressing religious beliefs. But when influenced too heavily by it, it can be harmful to the nation and the world. The current administration and the Republican Party in general are rife with un-Christian ideals. Yet, they continue to be supported by the religious zealots. Bedded with Satan. Go figure.

Going back the question of this thread Is it appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making national policy decisions?, yes it is appropriate but it MUST NOT be the only source! There are many times when a president should take a world view (which may be in contrast to his/her religion) of situations before he/she makes a decision and that decision has to be in line with positions stated by the president’s advisors, experts in their fields. You know, like the military advisors who told the president that 200-to-300 thousand boots-on-the-ground would be needed in Iraq after the initial conflict was over.

‘Nuff said.

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this

Dave, why is it that you can ramble on about the horrors of the religious faithful and yet fail to give examples of what is so horrible. You said that religious zealots want to impose their beliefs on others via political candidates. How is that different than those that p** and moan about how women should not be treated as property but feel the government shouldn’t make a stand when they chose to treat their own children as property and destroy them as they see fit? How is THAT different DAVE? You see NO problem with this administration expressing religious beliefs except that they are RIFE with unchristian ideals. Can you, to whom religion is anathema, explain what unchristian ideals they are rife with? The last one is GREAT! How in the world did you figure that the President, under heavy religious influence decided that he would ignore his advisors and only send half the recommended troops and that the decision was based on his religion? Dave, I know you didn’t mean to single out the Baptists, and likewise I really don’t mean to call you a dumbass. To show you that I don’t wish to force my religious views on you Dave, I remember why the settlers came to America and avoid religious persecution, so I will give you a free one way ticket to anywhere you want to go just so you can avoid it. Is that OK? NOBODY IS TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM AMERICA LIKE THEY TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES!

By Zack

October 26, 2004 01:03 PM | Link to this

The real question that should be asked is: “Should a president use as a guide the ‘anything goes but Christianity’ worldview that the liberals have done their best to impose on us and our children?” The answer, of course, is “Of course not!”

The sheer bigotry of Norman and “RS” scares me. It’s scary that two people could live in such states of denial.

Also, no, Jesus was not tolerant. Thank goodness. Good cannot be tolerant of evil, which is why Christians have failed God today by being tolerant of abortion, homosexuality, the liberal agenda being forced into our school system, etc.. I could go on and on. Is God forgiving? Of course. Love and forgiveness are related. Tolerance is anything but related.

This forum question is generally asked by those who attack vehemently the idea of a Christian prayer at a graduation but who welcome with open arms pornography, explicit “music” lyrics, outright lies to children in elementary schools concerning moral issues, and so on. We do need a president who uses the Bible as a guide. Our laws indeed were founded upon God’s Word, and we have everything to gain by returning to this practice. We need to protect our society from the non-foundation of relativism.

By Randy

October 26, 2004 01:27 PM | Link to this

I agree with Zack. Evil needs to be tolerated no longer. Abortion, homosexuality, etc. is all evil(I’m not calling a person who is homosexual evil). Jesus would want us to stand for what is good and right. Everybody wants to attack us Christians. Wow, you got your hands full(almost 2 billion of us worldwide). What it really comes down to is, you don’t want to answer to the creator of this world, you want to play God.

By Randy

October 26, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

I’ve been reading these comments for weeks now on religious viewpoints. What I see is there are people who know the creator and his son Jesus. Then there are people who have no idea of who the creator is. How do they obtain this information on who the creator is? Well they probably are not going to get it off the TV or movies(I’ll make an exception for “The Passion”. They can get it at most churchs, but that’s to hard on their psyche. After all they know everything. I call them Mr. or Mrs. Knownothing. I guess all we can do as Christians is pray for them and hope when the lord shows himself to them and he will, they are smart enough to accept the truth.

By vincent

October 26, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this

Hi Boscoe,

Hey, thanks for your opinion. As a matter of fact, not only am I a born again Christian, but I’ve studied the Bible for about twenty years.

You know, when people begin throwing around insults, it clearly is a sign they have exhausted their maximum intelligence. I am sorry that you feel you have to call me ignorant. But, I suppose anyone who differs from your way of thinking is lacking in facts, and is ignorant. I suppose because I am ignorant, I didn’t catch on to that right away.

The reason why it is innapropriate to base social policy on religios ideologies is because the arguements are based on “cherry-picking” references from the bible.

I do not believe in selective bigotry. That is why I made the point of reminding everyone that homosexuality is written in the same text as eating shellfish.

And, thank you for mentioning the anti-abortion laws came into effect in the early 1800’s. Does that mean that God changed Her mind? Did She think it was ok and then decide it wasn’t? And for extra credit, when did the word “homosexual” first appear in the Bible?

Leviticus 11 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 18 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

For the record, I am not responding to Boscoe. I love a good debate, but I gave up school yard bully matches, well, in the schoolyard. So, Boscoe, you can insult and name call all you want, I won’t read any of it.

By AllaboutME

October 26, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this

…with 6,396,451,988 people in the world christians certainly are a minority…if your figures are true, randy…but…this debating with ludicrous arguments about…what somebody born centuries ago would do…is boring…who the bleep cares….taking holy books out of context to suit modern times is amusing…few other faiths modify scripture like christians…but hey, who is to blame?…and dude, how can you say homosexuality is evil without having the cojones to stand up and call its practicioners evil…its in the script…you are trying to be far too PC there…thats not in the scripture……and boscoe…for shame…go back to where we came from? pray if our kind were born here before your kind got here…then who gets a ticket back…

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this

Vincent, for someone who has studied the Bible for twenty years I would expect you to realize Leviticus is part of the Old Testament which establishes the law for the Hebrews (Gods Chosen, remember?) to take this further the animals which you are to eat, etc… The prohibition of so many kinds of beasts, birds, and fishes, in the law, was ordered, 1st, to exercise the people in obedience, and temperance; 2ndly, to restrain them from the vices of which these animals were symbols; 3rdly, because the things here forbidden were for the most part unwholesome, and not proper to be eaten; 4thly, that the people of God, by being obliged to abstain from things corporally unclean, might be trained up to seek a spiritual cleanness. The fact that you would make the claim of “studying” the Bible for 20 years and then call God “She” is an accurate measure of the word ignorant whether you read it or not. Allaboutme I didn’t tell Dave he should go back to where he came from. I only offered him a ticket elsewhere so he could escape the persecution he is obviously suffering here.

By Boscoe Roads

October 26, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this

Vincent, you never answered my question, why is it inappropriate for a president to use personal religious beliefs as a platform against gay marriage and abortion?

By Angie

October 26, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Vincent stated the following,”…not only am I a born again Christian, but I’ve studied the Bible for about twenty years.” Also,”…thank you for mentioning the anti-abortion laws came into effect in the early 1800’s. Does that mean that God changed Her mind? Did She think it was ok and then decide it wasn’t?”

Where do I start??? First, you admit to being a Christian but call God “she”? So you think God is female? If you had studied the bible for 20 years you would know better than to call God “she”.

As to the anti-abortion laws in the 1800’s and God changing “her” mind-are you saying that God made the anti-abortion laws in 1800 and that “she” didn’t make any anti-abortion laws prior to 1800? You’re saying God makes our laws? How can that be?

By Randy

October 26, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this

To: Allaboutme, I’m sure you have heard this before, but what a appropriate name. The reason there are not more Christians is places, like China, Russia(especially before the wall coming down) North Korea etc. The leaders of these countries are so afraid of the power of Jesus, that they forbid that religion to be practiced. Why is it so powerful? Because it is true, the rest aren’t. Christianity is so powerful, it scares dictators to death! There would be probably 6 billion Christians! If allowed to be freely practiced worldwide!

By Randy

October 26, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

On homosexuality being evil, it is. The homosexual who practices this, I don’t think they are, evil. I am an optomist and I would label very few people on this earth evil, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, would be a few. Most of these people are confused, have fallen into a bad crowd early in life, have self image problems, or lacked a male father figure early in their development. They are not bad people, but most seem to be self centered and selfish.

By Angie

October 26, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

There is a difference between hating a person and hating the acts they commit. Let’s say your 16 year old child steals a car-you don’t hate your child but you hate the ACT they committed. Same thing with total strangers. You may hate some of their actions but NOT hate the individual.

Although, like Randy, there are a few people in the world I would classify as pure evil. Anyone who tortures and kills innocent people would certainly fall into the evil category. (But certainly not homosexuals.)

I don’t believe you are born gay or that gays should have legal rights implied to them specifically because they sleep with the same sex. But I don’t hate anyone who is gay. Nor do I think they are evil.

By the way, no one has commented on earlier posts made regarding the disbelief of some that the Holocaust actually took place. (See the last forum’s final posts.) Are there really people out there who doubt that millions of Jews were killed?

By AllaboutME

October 26, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

…could it just be more people have found faith elsewhere…like all the muslims…hindu…or buddhists…but everybody elses faith is wrong…I know…Ive watched the shows…like the lady with the pink hair and the three inch eyelashes…on wayne neutons gold chairs weeping about persecution…yeah…I seen them folks of faith too…and you know…I believe…I believe they believe…and I believe if…GWB…looses the election ashcroft & cheney & rumsfield can play the I-am-godly merry-go-round of talk shows…thats cool…but I dont think GBW is going loose…nope…we had the same vision he & I, dontchya know…god…told me to gather up all ye wall-mart greeters in america and parachute them into Iraq with coupons…and all the wall-mart builders came…leaving Iraq full suprifilous goods…and that was good…and everybody started begating somebody…as the american soldier exits into the sunset…looking for another country to bomb to spread the good word of capitalism…what a vision for america…

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

As noted previously: Of course a president can use his/her faith, beliefs, morals, ethics, etc. to guide them in making decisions.

But part of being President is recognizing the rights of others to believe and act differently from your own faith. And as President, it’s your job to protect those rights—not just if they disagree with your own religious tenets, but especially if they do.

By Vincent

October 26, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

The reason why it is inappropriate to base social policy on religious ideologies is because the arguements are based on “cherry-pickingâ€? references from the bible. The “selected” references are out-dated.

Angie & Boscoe- I guess you’ve met God personally and in fact know the actual gender. My using “She” is no different than you using “He”. No, God does not make our laws, and that is precisely the point. If anti-abortion people are using the bible as the basis for the platform, then why didn’t anyone do anything about it until the mid 1800’s? Wasn’t the bible written before the 1800’s? Does anyone else see this paradox? Again, why is it all right to pick and choose passages from the bible, and claim it is the final word from God, and yet ignore everything else? Does someone out there have a direct phone connection to God so She can tell them what is important and what isn’t? You cannot hand pick certain passages and ignore the rest.

And nobody has answered the extra point question: When did the word homosexual first appear in the bible?

Does anyone understand how vile selective discrimination is?

And Angie - You don’t believe people are born gay. That’s really sweet of you. Unless you are gay, how do you know if it is a born trait or a choice? Oh, wait, I forgot, you’ve met God and talked to Her, I mean Him.

By Akeya W.

October 26, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this

giggling at Vincent’s post

By Angie

October 26, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

(shaking my head at some of the comments)

Vincent said,”If anti-abortion people are using the bible as the basis for the platform, then why didn’t anyone do anything about it until the mid 1800’s?”

I am anti-abortion and I don’t use the bible as the basis for my stance. Abortion is a human rights issue.

Vincent, were you around prior to the 1800’s? Nope, didn’t think so.

And I could call you a woman all day long but that wouldn’t make it so. (Assuming you’re a man.)

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 08:30 AM | Link to this

Vincent, you really didn’t study the Bible for twenty years did you? If you did you would have surely recognized the gender of God when Jesus approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17). St. John’s testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ’s words to St. Philip: “Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: “Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner” (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: “That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all … I and the Father are one.” The words, “That which my Father hath given me,” can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 08:47 AM | Link to this

Sorry Vincent abortion has been outlawed longer than you think. Laws against abortion go back almost to when the Bible was written and there is no evidence of “Cherry - picking” that you claim exists. History contains no mention of abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of the Greeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices. Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were condemned to work in the metal mines.The Sixth Ecumenical Council (687 AD)determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the goths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour.The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion. As far as “Vile” discrimination is concerned should we go into the history of “discrimination” against homosexual acts?

By Religious Zealot

October 27, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this

It amazes me how people take time to memorize passages from the Bible…not to enrich their lives, but to use the words as ammunition.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 09:36 AM | Link to this

Is that what I’m doing Religious Zealot? Or is it that I have used it to better my life and I refuse to let others twist that text to suit their needs and rejection of my bid for higher learning.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 09:38 AM | Link to this

()()()()()()applauding Boscoe!!! ()()()()()()

Great information…hopefully Vincent and others will read and learn.

By norman

October 27, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

Woe to ye scribes and pharisees!

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 10:04 AM | Link to this

See this is the frustrating part of standing up in defense of my religion Angie. Just when you provide accurate information to refute one argument Norman comes back. Actually I don’t mind Norman makes me realize my problems are really quite small.

By norman

October 27, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I shall always be back to damn you bible-thumping idiots back to hell.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 10:28 AM | Link to this

If you say so Norman, the Ivy league Professor,….would you like the top bunk or the botton one?….as long as we’re going to the same place that is.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Holy Toledo!!! “bible thumping idiots back to hell”???!!!

You try to explain what YOU believe to others and you’re a “bible thumping idiot” from hell??? What the heck is that all about? So, if someone turned the tables and said you’re a bible burning moron on his way to hell would you tell them they were “judging others” and that they were shoving their religion down their throats? Oh, that’s right…it’s okay for anti-Christians to judge others and belittle them and mock them. Sorry, forgot that for a moment. (And NO, I was not trying to imply norman was burning bibles.)

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 10:58 AM | Link to this

The following is taken from The Treasures of the Mass by the Benedictine Convent of Perpetual Adoration, + Imprimatur: Charles Hubert LeBlond, Bishop of St. Joseph, May 19, 1936. Norman the sooner you understand and come to terms with this the better off you’ll be. The Almighty God is, in Himself, eternal happiness. Therefore nothing can be wanting to Him. Were something lacking to Him, He would no longer be God, in whom all perfection dwells. And still, there was a time when God called the wonderful universe into existence. Million and millions of blessed spirits now surround Him in heaven. A host of suns and myriads of stars form, as it were, a via triumphalis—a triumphant way, on which He treads. On our earth, the three kingdoms of nature: the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms, of which He made man the king, proclaim His wisdom and power, His beauty and goodness. Considering this, we involuntarily ask ourselves: For what reason did God, to whom nothing is wanting, create all this beauty, and call these many creatures into existence? Reason and faith answer: God did it out of purest love and goodness, out of Divine generosity. He did not wish to enjoy His bliss and happiness alone;—He desired that other beings should share His glory and His riches. For this reason He called creation into existence.

Duty of adoration. God is the Creator. Man, the creature, is the work of His hands, His possession. It is the duty of man to consider the Creator as his supreme Lord and Master, to prostrate in reverence and admiration before Him; to adore and praise Him. To adore the Divinity, to pay homage to God—what an honor for a poor creature! To acknowledge in God all good, all truth, all that is worthy of affection; to submit one’s understanding and will to God’s greatness; to offer Him one’s soul and body; yea, even to wish to consume oneself in order to procure Him honor and glory—can there be a nobler aim in life? God not only called the universe into being but He also preserves it continually. This constant preservation is no less a miracle than the creation itself. Were the Creator to withdraw His hand for but one instant from His work of creation, the great universe would return to nothingness; likewise would every individual creature. Hence, God thinks of us, His creatures, at every moment; He provides for us from day to day and preserves us with infinite love. He holds in store for us everything good, everything lovely and beautiful, for He would not enjoy His happiness alone; He wishes us to participate in it. He has made our earthly life like unto one of paradise; His whole creation He places at our feet. If we find thorns and thistles, it is not God’s fault. Sin, wilful sin, has spoiled everything. The malice of original sin and of the many personal sins of mankind is the sole cause of our sufferings and trials here below. However, God in His infinite mercy and goodness has destined that these very sufferings and trials should become a source of merit and future happiness for us through His beloved Son. Jesus has ennobled and sanctified suffering through His Cross. Is it not just, then, that we should prove ourselves grateful for His Divine Providence, for the preservation of our life, for the many benefits He bestows upon us? God’s right to our gratitude. God has a strict claim to the gratitude of His creatures. Gratitude should incessantly ascend to Him from the hearts of men, because God’s providence is without limits, and God’s love operates continually for us. Just as each moment of our life is a new benefit from God, so should it be a renewed thanksgiving toward our benevolent Creator. Benefits demand gratitude. Oh, that man would have the understanding and good will to think of his great Benefactor often during the day and often during the night—his life would become an uninterrupted hymn of thanks. But alas! how different the reality! what a misfortune for man! Instead of adoring his Lord and Creator and thanking Him, man offends Him fearlessly and impudently to His face. He sins every day! The helpless creature offends an Almighty God! Sin is contempt of God, revolt against God, and exacts from the Creator the exercise of His right to demand an account from the sinner, to punish him, and refuse him pardon until he is sorry, does penance and makes satisfaction. God’s right to satisfaction. God is infinitely good, but likewise infinitely just. He will not yield His right of demanding satisfaction from the sinner. God cannot allow a haughty creature to despise His commands and break His laws with impunity. His dignity and sanctity cannot tolerate this. Not to punish the sinner would mean to disregard sin and, indirectly, to approve of it; it would mean to discourage the good. A father who does not punish the child that is indulging in vice and showing no signs of amendment—is such a father to be considered a good father? Sad to say, all too many people look at sin in a different light. But God must punish sin; hence sinful man—and we all are sinners—must render satisfaction, or live and die an enemy of God and be forever separated from Him. Necessity of prayer. God gives to man the life of the body, and, in holy baptism, the far more precious supernatural life of grace. If our natural life cannot continue even for one moment without Divine Providence, much less can the life of grace be retained without Divine assistance. Did not God’s generosity always accompany man with His blessing, how would he ever attain to eternal blessedness? What is man without the grace of God? Grace, however, is a free gift of God; God even desires to lavish grace upon us. We need thousands of graces for obtaining life eternal, and we must ask for them: that is the Divine will; hence, the necessity of prayer. God has created and redeemed us without our meriting these benefits; but He will not give us eternal happiness without our cooperation. We must merit heaven. He expects that we toil for Him. He expects our cooperation with His grace, and our cooperation by good works. This cooperation is to be of our own free will, not forced. Were God to do all, and we nothing towards our eternal salvation, where would be our merit? Where our claim to reward? Or, if God were to force us, where would be our liberty in our actions? God leaves every man free to decide for good or evil, and, according to this choice, we meet with good and wicked men in this world. If we choose the good and perform it, we acquire merits for heaven. However, of ourselves we can neither will nor accomplish any good; for this we need the assistance of God. “Without God you can do nothing,” said Our Lord (John xv, 5). We must ask for this assistance, for this grace of graces. In other words, we must pray. Four claims and four duties. What has been said in the foregoing paragraphs regarding the mutual relations of God and man, the Creator and the creature, may be briefly summed up as follows:— 1. God is the supreme good, the Creator of all things, the most holy One. Therefore, man owes God, in the first place, adoration. 2. God is the origin and motive of good; He is the Author of all man is and has. Hence, man must show gratitude toward God, his greatest Benefactor. 3. God is offended by sin. Therefore the sinner must ask His pardon and render satisfaction for sin. 4. God has decreed to give His special graces only to those who ask Him for them. Therefore, man must pray to obtain these graces and to live in grace. Thus we see that, from the four claims of God upon His creatures, arise four duties of the creature toward his Creator. But we, poor children of Eve, how can we fulfill these duties? Are we at all capable to fulfill them so as to win the approval of God? To this there can be but one answer: No. We have become so helpless through sin that even with the best of will and the greatest exertion it would be impossible, of our own strength, to regain the friendship of God. Our adoration will never correspond to the infinite majesty of God, nor our gratitude to the benefits we have received; our satisfaction could never repair the insult and contempt we have offered to the Supreme Being; and our prayer, alas! Our poor, distracted prayer, could of itself never reach the throne of God, could never merit to be heard. There is a deep abyss between the almighty, thrice holy, eternal God and His poor sinful creatures. Since we cannot, of ourselves, comply with our four principal duties to God, what remains to be done? The unspotted Lamb. Behold! In the midst of this desert of sinfulness and helplessness there rises before our eyes an altar. A priest ascends the steps; a supernatural, indelible mark is impressed upon his soul. He places upon the altar a chalice and a host. From his lips proceed a few omnipotent words which he pronounces over this chalice and this host—and, O wonder! The Body and Blood of the Son of God are present upon the altar. Earth awakens, its exiled children arise; they draw nearer and nearer; they gather about the altar, and from millions and millions of hearts ascend humble and grateful prayers. Songs of praise resound; fervent petitions are heard; and from on high, from heaven’s heights, resound melodies that betoken love and forgiveness, blessings and joy. Heavenly spirits proclaim glory to God and peace to men. What has happened? Why this jubilation, this hope? Mankind has offered upon the altar the pure, unspotted Lamb to the Eternal Father. By this Sacrifice mankind worthily acknowledges God’s sovereign rights, thanks Him for His gifts, renders atonement for its misdeeds and petitions His help. The Eternal Father accepts the sacrifice of His Son, the homage of mankind: It is Holy Mass—the rescuing oasis where, as on another Calvary, God and man meet and offer friendship’s hand. The Sacrifice of Calvary perpetuated. The Sacrifice of the Cross was the greatest act which the Divine and human love of Jesus Christ accomplished for us. Through the death of Christ on the Cross we were redeemed. Through His immolation on the Cross, the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world and reconciled mankind with the heavenly Father. No further sacrifice of redemption was necessary. However, the Sacrifice of our Savior on the Cross did not do away with the personal duty of His creatures to pay unto their God and Creator the highest form of outward worship possible to man—sacrifice. Otherwise man’s worship would have been shorn of its most important feature, its highest and principal function. Therefore the unfathomable love and wisdom of the Savior provided a means of daily renewing the Sacrifice of the Cross in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Sacrifice of the Cross MERITED for us immeasurable treasures of grace; through Holy Mass these graces are APPLIED to our souls. Holy Mass is, according to the teaching of Holy Church, the same Sacrifice as that which our Savior offered on the Cross, differing only in the manner of offering. “The same Sacrifice!” Who can fully grasp the purport of these words? Yet they are true, nevertheless, for in Holy Mass we have the same Priest and the same Victim as in the Sacrifice of Calvary. On the Cross, Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; on our altars He sacrifices Himself through the ministry of the priest, without shedding His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His Passion and Death. The Sacrifice of the Mass does not increase the merits of the Sacrifice of the Cross; it merely applies them to souls. Since Holy Mass is a renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross, it follows that Holy Mass is the most sublime means of honoring God and the richest fountain of grace and blessings for the Church and for the faithful. A spiritual writer says: “Just as the sun surpasses all other planets in brightness and strength, and brings more benefit to the earth than all the stars combined, so the Sacrifice of the Mass surpasses all other works of devotion.” Holy Mass possesses an infinite value. The Heavenly Father looked with infinite complacency upon His Divine Son when He accomplished the Sacrifice of the Cross. With the same complacency His eye rests upon every altar whereon the holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. From each altar a stream of grace flows out over the whole Church of Christ. Ceaselessly we can draw from this stream of grace in Holy Mass for our life on earth and for our glory in eternity. How great is the loss that one suffers who passes through life without drawing from this ocean of graces, to which he may so easily have access, the blessings which he needs to make him truly happy! Jesus on our altars offers us His help and His consolations, His blessing and His peace, His goodness and His joy, His sufferings and His Death, with all their merit. He yearns to come to our assistance in our need, and whose need is not great? Means of fulfilling our fourfold duty. Through the holy Sacrifice we can perfectly fulfill our fourfold duty toward God. This spotless Sacrifice redounds to God’s greatest honor and glory. It is likewise the most perfect sacrifice of adoration and praise that the Majesty of God can demand. We can offer this Sacrifice to thank God for all the graces which He has granted to ourselves, to those near to us, to the Church, to all mankind, as well as those which He has granted and will continue to grant to all the saints and angels for all eternity. We can also offer this Holy Sacrifice to make atonement for our own sins and for the sins of the whole world. This Sacrifice of priceless worth we may also offer to implore blessing, grace and protection for ourselves, for our dear ones, for the Church and for all mankind, as also for the relief of the souls in purgatory. Would to God that we appreciated aright the immense treasure which we possess in Holy Mass! How happy we should then be! How zealously we should embrace every opportunity to hear Mass, and how attentively we should assist at its celebration! Too many Catholics look upon attendance at Mass only as on obligation; they fulfill that obligation largely through a sense of duty, and only when the law of the Church prescribes attendance. Alas! Of what treasures do those Catholics deprive themselves who absent themselves from Holy Mass when the could so easily be present each morning at its celebration! Ah, how shall we excuse ourselves before God on the day of judgment for having neglected to assist at Holy Mass on account of our trivial occupations, or our love of ease? It is true, we are not commanded to hear Mass on weekdays, and God will not condemn us for not doing so. But may He not accuse us of being slothful in His service, and of wasting the talent of grace which was confided to our keeping—that is, the graces which would have been communicated to us through daily Holy Mass?—May these humble pages inspire many souls with a deeper understanding and a more ardent love of the Holy Sacrifice, and urge them to assist more frequently, more fervently, and more fruitfully at its celebration!

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2004 11:12 AM | Link to this

Gotta hand it to you, Boscoe… your cut-and-paste skills are right up there among the very finest.

But please explain (for the rest of us benighted heathens) what this lengthy excerpt has to do with the topic?

By Lyrazel

October 27, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this

Spare me your tirades people. There are actual readers of Woman to Women who want to concentrate on the issues brought up rather than religious dogma and your own personal (non)beliefs. There is nothing wrong with belief but its very disrespectful that you hijack this column week after week without attaching to the issues at hand. Your opinions are all valid and yet the constant bickering and prattle is less than dignified. Please, both sides—read the article, make your comments, but please stop dragging this into a who-is-more-godly or I-am-always-right. Thank you, Lyra

By Zack

October 27, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—You have a lot of nerve to criticize anyone. Your thinking is just as off-base as that of Norman, Akeya, etc.. Boscoe, on the other hand, presents a lot of valuable facts.

Angie—Yep, there definitely is a double standard when it comes to liberals. If you believe in God and His absolute truth, you’re a “bigot”. If you reject Christianity and accept anything but that, you’re “open-minded”; never mind the fact that you’re accepting nonsense.

We need to look around this country and realize that we’ve stepped far away from God. Abortion, which is injustifiable, is legal. Pornography is rampant. Homosexuality is smiled upon. However, Christians are attacked with passionate bigotry left and right. It’s time we stood up against the bigotry we’re confronted with and take a stand for the Word of God.

It would be nice if we had a president who would take an all-out stance against abortion, not a half-hearted stance to try to appease his constituents. Yes, the ban on partial-birth abortion was nothing short of wonderful. It doesn’t need to stop there. Abortion of any kind must be outlawed. Both Bush and Kerry have said they can’t legislate their faith. They need to remember that this is a Christian country and that our laws were founded upon God’s holy word. What we don’t need, actually, is what we’ve had now for so many years: laws being based on personal whims and biases.

I said earlier that we need to look around this country and realize we’re very far from God. We then need to take steps to change that. Again, moving away from the nonsense of relativism and back to the absolute truth of the Bible is the answer.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

I had a feeling that post would get a few replies. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. Thanks Brian, for the compliment, I did mention the source though.

By norman

October 27, 2004 12:14 PM | Link to this

“It ain’t necessarily so, it ain’t necessarily so, the things that you’re liable to read in the bible, it ain’t necessarily so.” A piece of American wisdom.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2004 12:17 PM | Link to this

Actually, I’m encouraged by Zack’s statement: “Both Bush and Kerry have have said they can’t legislate their faith.”

Thank goodness THEY at least understand that much about our Constitution, even if others don’t. Legislation based on a specific faith is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

Lyrazel has made a good point: instead of endlessly wrangling about who possesses the ‘Absolute Truth,’ why not consider the actual forum topic once in awhile?

By JZA

October 27, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this

Does it not state in teh Constitution that church and state are to be separate? And why is it that Christians automatically think that if you don’t follow their particular sect of religion that you are evil? I am Catholic. I am Pro Choice and I WILL VOTE for Kerry. I guess to you all I am evil. But I believe I am a free citizen of a country that allows people of all religions and other differences to vote an dmake their voices heard.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 12:55 PM | Link to this

The question is: Is it appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making national policy decisions?

I don’t see how a person could NOT use their faith and belief system to guide them. It makes up who you are and how you think. Only someone with flimsy/weak beliefs would be able to put those beliefs aside to make decisions. Only a person who was still searching for the truth and for answers to life’s questions would be able to lay their beliefs aside.(Because they lack any real beliefs.)

George Bush is strong in his beliefs and would not/could not put those aside when making a judgement. John (“I was an altar boy”) Kerry says he CAN put his beliefs aside which tells me his beliefs are not very strong to begin with.

My Christian faith is the very core of who I am and how I try to live my life. I could no sooner put those aside than I could flap my arms and fly to the moon. My faith guides me.

By Dave

October 27, 2004 12:55 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you represent the very kind of person this nation (and all others, in fact) should be concerned about. You sound *delirious. Insane, even. Are you one of those fellas who stands on street corners shouting passages from the Bible with the Bible raised high overhead trying to frighten people into your religious views? You know, that’s not an effective way to attract humans. Honey always works better than a stick.

I think you are a very weak man who no longer has the capacity or the will to seek truth outside that little black book written a few hundred years ago by appointees of a king who based their project on writings by men, with very limited universal knowledge, thousands of years ago. Yes, Boscoe. I am a skeptic of religion. If you believe in following a monotheistic religion, I do not understand why you don’t follow the original monotheistic religion, excluding Aten, the Written Torah/Tanakh (Old Testament) and the Talmud. All others are variants of the original.

That lengthy tirade (I didn’t read it.) you injected above further demonstrates your state of mind. You sound like a very depressed, angry man. If that’s what religion does to one, I don’t want any of it. But, we have gotten off track. I stand by my 9th paragraph (next to last) beginning with “Going back the question of this thread …”

I really don’t want to get into a shouting match with you, Boscoe. You sound scary.

‘Nuff said.

• Merriam-Webster’s definition of delirium 1 : a mental disturbance characterized by confusion, disordered speech, and hallucinations 2 : frenzied excitement

By Angie

October 27, 2004 01:00 PM | Link to this

I think in earlier posts we discussed “evil” as being the likes of Hitler who commit mass murders. Don’t recall mentioning Catholics in the evil category.

By Zack

October 27, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

Every decision made needs to be made on reason. If not, then the wrong decision has been made. There is no more reason to be found than in the Bible.

Making decisions to legalize abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, etc. is obviously not reasonable. There’s a message here.

We have a choice; we can look to God and His Word, or we can keep on answering to our personal biases and prejudices and throw around “God bless America”, when we don’t even acknowledge God but instead this manmade wish that all religions lead to God and that we’re all right in our own way.

Yes, we need the Bible. To ignore God and try to live life on our own is a mistake.

By Zack

October 27, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this

Every decision made needs to be made on reason. If not, then the wrong decision has been made. There is no more reason to be found than in the Bible.

Making decisions to legalize abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, etc. is obviously not reasonable. There’s a message here.

We have a choice; we can look to God and His Word, or we can keep on answering to our personal biases and prejudices and throw around “God bless America”, when we don’t even acknowledge God but instead this manmade wish that all religions lead to God and that we’re all right in our own way.

Yes, we need the Bible. To ignore God and try to live life on our own is a mistake.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 01:27 PM | Link to this

Yes Zack and Boscoe, when you take a stand for your Christian beliefs you are labeled an idiot by non believers.

1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Let’s look at the way Christians and non-Christians live their lives. Who are the ones committing murder, stealing, raping? And yet you want to try and tear US down and belittle US??? People of faith do not commit these crimes. Look at the front page of your newspaper at all of the vicious acts of violence. Christians aren’t committing these acts. Why do you want to make US out to be the ones that are always in the wrong? Why do you want to keep US out of our country’s decision making process?

Think about it. Where would you rather live-in a world filled with Christians or in a world where no one is a Christian and “anything goes”-crime and mass murder included?

By vincent

October 27, 2004 01:40 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, must be lonely being the only non-ignorant person in the world. Also must make you mad that you don’t know the answer to the bonus question. Just like Bush, when he don’t know the answer, he speaks for a long time on nothing related hoping everyone would forget the question. Oh, and regarding He, Supreme being was the original translation, not He.

Angie - You are good at math. Abortion legal before 1841, illegal until 1973, legal now. Human issues? Good choice for you. You should be thankful the government hasn’t taken away your freedom of choice.

Anyone have an answer yet to bonus question? And, yes, that is relevant to the forum.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

Actually JZA, the Constitution doesn’t say separation of Church and State at all! Dave even Norman responded more civilly than you did. For the record, that long post was directed at Norman for his continual hateful comments toward Christianity. To be perfectly honest I don’t care if you read the whole post or not. It’s funny Dave, you accuse me of being weak, depressed, unhappy, angry and you’ve implied other negative connotations towards Christianity. It’s not me who refuses to seek the truth in other places it’s you Dave! Mostly because you’re afraid of it. Clearly by your two posts you hate organized religion and yet your understanding of it is slightly above that of a child. By your own admission you refuse to look at information provided on the subject, perhaps because you fear the damage it may do to your perfect little world. Those claims you’ve made in your first post — You still have not answered the questions I presented to you. Why is that Dave? I can assure you Dave, I have looked and tried almost all ways available to live my life. This is the one that works. Those things you say I am are always the same ones mentioned by those who fear what I am about. That lengthy tirade you refer to couldn’t be any clearer on this subject. Again, I apologize for printing such a lengthy bit but the topic of discussion does involve Faith.

By mark wood

October 27, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

Whoa!!!! I go out of town for a few days and the invective gets worse. You so called Christians are filled with more hate and bias than any of the self proclaimed bigots I know.

Norman, your drivel is absolutely predictable, childish, and proves nothing other than your hatred of all humans but yourself. What is that quote you keep beating to death. “Woe, excuse my scribblings and insecurities.” Well, I think that’s close.

As far as whether a president (elected or candidate) should use their faith. What a silly, F@*%^^$# question. You can not seperate a man from his faith. (Norman is proof of that. Oh, and Boscoe.)

The question, or more accurately, the concern, should be what he does with that faith, regardless of whether he is Christian, Muslim, Athiest.

Then, other posts: Move on. Of course several people have been elected with less than a true majority. We live in a republic using an electoral college, not a democracy. Randy. China had (has) few concerns about Christians. It was the Buddhists, which outnumber Christians by so much it isn’t worth discussing, that the oppressors feared. You only need look at Tibet for proof of this. Modern day, real life Tibet, where you could realistically be killed for your faith.
That is a threat. Criticism, if you are as faithful as you claim to be (You too Boscoe) is no threat at all. It should empower you. Not make you bitter. You are the ones who apparently need to reread the Bible. You spew as much or more hatred than Norman.

By Vincent

October 27, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

Hi Angie - Such a tough life. All these non-believers making all this crime happen. As we all know, believers never commit crime. NEVER.

2003 FBI Criminal Statistics Report - Of the 44.9 percent of criminal acts against someone non-white in the USA, 22.1 percent caught confessed they were doing it for God. 18.8 percent of the criminal acts resulted because the victims weren’t going to the right church.

James Kopp was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list for almost three years. You may remember jumping up and down in your living room in front of the tv in 1999 when the news reported he was wanted for fatally killing a doctor who performed abortions.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

Vincent, it’s not as bad as you might think, beside playing apologetics with you keeps me busy. You just don’t give up do you? I gave you phrases out of the Bible that reference the Father. Father has NOT been translated from Supreme Being. I also gave you reliable information on the history of abortion and the Churches stand against it why do you insist that abortion was legal before 1841? Stop reading those pro-abortion website and find me the law from the books that proves its existence. When did the word homosexual first appear in the bible? The Word Homosexual, didn’t even appear till the early nineteen hundreds. Language changes with the generations. What are you telling us Vincent , that as the new word Homosexual was created and was included in new Bibles printed after that point to describe a depraved act, then because those Bible have that new word it’s discrimination?

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

And exactly how is that Mark? Please go into detail.

By mark wood

October 27, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this

How is that?

You hate homosexuals. You (apparently) hate the likes of me and Norman, who I find harmless and amusing. (Oh. Did I mention the Epsicopal denomination of YOUR religion).

The simple fact is…

You hate.

No wonder I’m not a christian.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

I’m going to go out on another limb. I am so convinced that abortion and homosexuality angers God so much I’m going to predict another 9/11 style attack on New York. Anybody can say this so let me take it further. The Statue of Liberty & The Empire State Building will be targeted. There will be bombs placed in startegic places. There will be automatic weapons and many will die because of this. We may even see the use of a nuclear warhead from inside an abandoned subway track under Manhattan. Building will topple. This will happen soon because we have failed to stop abortion and homosexuality. I hope the only thing that happens is that you folks can laugh at me because I would say such a foolish thing that never happened. If it does though reconsider your views about God. Dave now you can be scared.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Mark I never said I hated anybody you just did. I don’t like the things they do. I don’t hate them for it.

By vincent

October 27, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

1945 to be exact. Depending on your translation, there are about four instances in the bible related to homosexuals. In Leviticus, The Holiness Code cannot be cherry-picked. I am so tired of people choosing which versus they want and arming themselves with hatred bigotry, and ignoring the others. And that is why, making social change on the “Selected Passage du Jour” is not acceptable, it perpetuates sanctified hate crimes, and it doesn’t do anything to open the eyes of people. There is no proof in any bible that God condemns homosexuals. None. And no cutting and pasting will prove it either. And doesn’t anyone find it odd that there is no passage that reads if a woman lies with a woman? Does that mean being a gay man is wrong, and being a lesbian is not wrong? These passages only refer to setting up laws different from behaviour of Egypt. They refer to both male and female prostitution and gang rape. Sodomy, as you already know because I am ignorant and you are not, referred to all forms of sexual proclivities.

And I do not read pro-abortion websites. I have a PhD in Women’s Studies. Your subtle attempt that time to call me ignorant was cute. I refuse to insult you. (Gave that up in grade school)

By Angie

October 27, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this

Once again when you try to explain your beliefs after they’ve been attacked and try to defend your faith then you MUST be filled with “hate”???

It was mentioned earlier-you can hate the ACTS someone commits but that doesn’t mean you hate the PERSON. If your child steals your neighbors car you hate the ACT but you don’t hate your CHILD.

Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean you hate them. At least not in my case. Nor does it mean you are judging them. It simply means you are trying to explain your beliefs and the reason for your faith.

Good grief.

By vincent

October 27, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

Oh my goodness. Now, I’ve read everything. 9/11 was an attack on the USA because of rampant abortion and homosexuality? Are you really serious?

Do you honestly think that? Why did God wait until exactly 9/11/01 to choose only America to show his wrath? Has not abortion and homosexuality been happening all around the world since the beginning of time? Why did God choose the USA? Why didn’t God have every country with gays and abortion clinics attacked that day?

You know, up until your last posting, I was enjoying the debate. But, that claim you just made is so distorted and, well, sad that your commentary no longer holds any type of validity.

Feel free to insult me all you want, and rant and rave. Moving forward, I’m ignoring you.

May God Bless you Boscoe. You truly need it.

By Boscoe Roads

October 27, 2004 03:22 PM | Link to this

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS 1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

God delivered them up… Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

There it is Vincent write from the Bible - pretty to the point. Or do you call men with men something other than homosexuality? As far as 9/11 and the next one..just remember what I said if it happens.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

If you were to read the bible you would discover that God does bring wrath to people and countries that disobey Him. Look in the bible at how many countries has He’s used to try and wake up Israel?

Look at Soddom & Gommorah. They were a godless society. They were also rampant with homosexuality. God poured His wrath out on S&G because of the way they were living and the fact that they denied His existance. Boscoe was trying to make you wake up and realize that our country is turning into another S&G-and quickly!

Yes, God has used dictators and countries as instruments of His wrath. God can only take so much disrespect and disobedience.

The fact is that we live in a day and age where if you don’t have the “anything goes/sleep with anyone/kill anyone/do whatever I want” attitude then you are a “bigot” or a “hate-monger”. What’s wrong in a society has turned into what’s right…at least according to the ACLU and anti-Christians.

Boscoe’s comments shocked some people here because they don’t want to admit there could be a God and that they might have to answer for their actions and lack of belief one day.

By mark wood

October 27, 2004 04:18 PM | Link to this

Angie:

You must be stupid.

If it weren’t for the ACLU and so called “liberals,” you could not spew your anger.

You could not freely whoreship (Intentional) your god.

We would all be heathens fighting for the right or priviledge to impose our will on others. I don’t believe in him, but I thank your god that you and your friends are not in charge.

Get a boy friend (Since you obviously have never had one). Get laid. (Like Boscoe, or norman, never could hope to). Then look at life like the rest of the world.

Decadence and perversion, even immorality, are in the eyes of those judging, not those judged. Homosexuality is a crime only for those who ignore the love that every gay couple I have known shows.

I’m as strait as an arrow, Angie. But I would rather be with a man who doesn’t let others (Including a book written by men, not some god) tell him what to do, than be with a woman like you. At least (probably) he wouldn’t complain if I didn’t perform to expectation. We might actually laugh about it. Hell. We might even have a good time.

God forbid.

By Randy

October 27, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe’s comments scare the non-Christian. There is nothing hateful about them. He is right and they don’t want to listen, because if they did they might agree and have to answer to the Creator! Good job Boscoe, Zack, and Angie.

By Randy Hayes

October 27, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

Mark, you have absolutely no idea what makes the USA a great nation, or what you are talking about.

By mark wood

October 27, 2004 04:32 PM | Link to this

Enlighten me, Randy.

You seem so knowledgable.

Please.

I beg of you.

Share your wisdom.

By Addai

October 27, 2004 04:39 PM | Link to this

What I implied was twisted out of porportion so let me clearly restate it:Presidents are not chosen to have their bias beliefs used as an escuse for their actions. Not everyone will practice your religion or even agree.What I meant about utilizing facts was the President looking at the situation presented and using good ol common sense and understanding the possible outcomes of his actions. You will be a fool to do something illegal and blame it on the bible so why should you take severe action that can harm the country and say “the bible told me to do it”? Their are enough religious fanatics out there that manage to twist the words of Jesus up until it suits their needs

By Randy

October 27, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

Mark, Ask specific questions and I will answer them tomorrow.

By Angie

October 27, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

Dear Mark,

Thanks for the personal attack. You called me stupid, said I spewed anger, something about “whoreship” and god, said I’ve never had a boy friend and told me to “get laid”.

I must have hit a nerve for you to resort to personal insults like that.

By mark wood

October 27, 2004 05:02 PM | Link to this

Randy, Boscoe, Angie, et. al.,

Using your religion, or any other justification you might consider, makes hatred no less than it is.

Hatred is hatred.

If you believe in Christ, as you all so vociferously claim to, you would not be worried about whose #(^ anyone was #*&^!($. You would also know that it is wrong to impose your believes on others for political reasons. And don’t quote Matthew again, Boscoe.

Thou shalt not judge.

It leaves absolutely no romm for contemplaption and debate.

If you would like a country where religious doctrine rules without regard to secular rule, I know I would be happy to help buy the plane ticket.

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 07:34 AM | Link to this

Angie,

Sweetheart.

You didn’t hit a nerve. I wanted you to hear how silly people who are angry, prejudiced and presumptuous sound.

You may be a lovely woman. You certainly have conviction.

But prejudice and hate are never justifiable. And a true Christian would never use the Bible to justify either. If you criticize (abhor) an act, you do the same of the person committing said act, even as you claim otherwise.

Why are you people so angry?

We get exactly the government we deserve, flaws and all. We choose that government with a freedom unmatched in the world.

Faith? It will always be a part of our elected officials. They are human. You can not seperate the two. Whether it is right or wrong doesn’t matter. It is a simple fact of life. Even those of us who don’t believe in the Christian god have a faith, of sorts. This site is proof enough of that.

Like it or not, society evolves. Morality changes. If it didn’t, the Romans, before Christ, would still be ruling the world. Or the Christian church would still support the crusades, slaughtering witches and non believers with an enthusiasm Satan would appreciate.
And there would be no USA because Christopher Columbus would have been executed as a blasphemer for insisting the world wasn’t flat.

By Randy

October 28, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this

Mark, How do you figure we are angry? The only posts I see that are angry are Norman and yours is getting close. If you don’t have faith in God, what do you have faith in. All I see in your post is attacks, using the world as flat attack, can be used both ways. Why didn’t you ask specific questions to me, afraid of the responses? Intelligent debate is what is needed here!

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 08:17 AM | Link to this

Mark, don’t quote Matthew again or what? It wasn’t even Matthew Mark, try to keep up here. Your argument that gays are only looking for “Love” is out to lunch. It’s clear there’s something more to it when children’s books have been written AND distributed trying to justify this behavior. If homosexual partners were only interested in “Love” then why do thy feel it’s necessary to do that? The reason is simple, they wish nothing more than to change the very nature of marriage and write it off as a useless institution. To change the very nature of the family gaves reason to justify gay marriage. And when people, like those here, speak out against it we’re labeled as hatful. Can you here the whining now Mark? It’s not my fault these people have chosen to indulge in these depraved acts due to something lacking in their character. The sentence ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ is usually quoted out of context. Christ did not enjoin us to refrain from ever judging. What he went on to say in the next four verses is that we should judge ourselves before we judge others—not that we shouldn’t judge at all. Withholding charitable correction when called to do so is plainly against Jesus’ teaching, and against the love of neighbor. St. Thomas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.â€? Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven.

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 08:26 AM | Link to this

Get a boy friend (Since you obviously have never had one). Get laid. (Like Boscoe, or norman, never could hope to). Then look at life like the rest of the world. And this comes from a guy that labels us as hatful. Very nice Mark but that’s the best you can come up with? What are you 12? This is typically the kind of responses you get from people who can’t find reasonable justification for this behavior. Angie, Randy, Zack, please let me remind you of an important rule. Don’t argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

By Randy

October 28, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Boscoe, debating with idiots is unproductive. Their mind is closed. Really I’ve never heard a debate against God or Christianity that had any validity. They really have no facts to stand on!

By Angie

October 28, 2004 08:59 AM | Link to this

WOW! Where do I begin???

Mark: You try to label Christians as hateful and yet if you read the posts you can clearly tell who is full of hate. (Look in the mirror.) I agree with Boscoe that you sound like someone about to enter high school. (Name calling and insults say alot about your character.)

I am not angry at anyone. Sounds like YOU are though. You’re angry at us Christians for speaking our minds and explaining what we believe in. Why? Why does that make you angry? (Again, whenever an anti-Christian hears the truth I think it hits a nerve deep down.)

I could comment on the ridiculous things you said in your earlier post but I won’t stoop to your level. But I think you proved your intelligence level to everyone on this list by your comments.

Thanks Boscoe and Randy.

By Akeya W.

October 28, 2004 09:24 AM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By Randy

October 28, 2004 09:25 AM | Link to this

WE HAVE A WINNER! DUE TO THE FACT WE HAVE HAD NO INTELLIGENT RESPONSES FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T BELIEVE. I AM DECLARING “CHRISTIANS” AS THE WINNERS. WOW! WE WIN NOW AND FOREVER. SORRY, TO THE DECENDING OPINIONS, YOU HAD NO CASE. WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT. HOWEVER, YOU STILL HAVE A SHOT OF WINNING. BY REALIZING YOU ARE WRONG,JESUS IS VERY FORGIVING AND WILL TAKE YOU TO, JUST ACCEPT HIM AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR, THEN YOU CAN WIN WITH US! THIS IS THE CHOICE HE GIVES ALL PEOPLE, SOME OF US ARE SMART ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THE GIFT! I’M SURE SOME WILL SAY NO, BUT YOU CAN SAY YES.

By Angie

October 28, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this

IT’S REALLY GREAT TO BE ON THE WINNING TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PRIZE? ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN WITH GOD, JESUS AND OUR LOVED ONES.

By Zack

October 28, 2004 09:52 AM | Link to this

Angie—Yes, it is great to be on the winning team. It’s great that Jesus provided a way for us.

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 09:53 AM | Link to this

Randy, Boscoe and Angie,

I have to laugh. Apparently you only remember those parts of my posts that suit your needs.

I respect you for your opinions. I just don’t agree with them.

Humor, even bad humor like I used (but you seemed to have missed the joke) is a tool.

I do not fault Christians as a group. Just those who wave that banner to justify their prejudiced individual beliefs. There is no single set of values in your religion, or any other, for that matter. It is interpretation.

Interpretation by humans with human flaws. Ask Boscoe. Apparently Episcopalians are slime because they allow gay ministers. But I have never heard him condemn the more strict Catholic Church for it’s decades and centuries of hiding the homosexuality or child molestation of it’s priests.

Perception and interpretation. We are all guilty of that. That is prejudice. Some of us, however, don’t use it as a tool to codemn others (or their actions).

That, my friends, is what a twelve year old does.

Maybe now you understand my intentionally childish “outburst.” To be serious, you have to have a sense of humor. I just wish mine had not gone over your heads.

By Angie

October 28, 2004 10:27 AM | Link to this

I guess my idea of humor doesn’t involve name calling and personal insults.

Mark, I do respect your right to your opinion and your right to support gays as well as your right not to believe in God. You have the right to your opinion. But maybe we could refrain from personal attacks and insults to make our points. Sounds like a great idea to me.

According to you NO ONE has the right to DISAGREE with the practice of homosexuality. But guess what? We DO have that RIGHT. The right to disagree and the right to voice that opinion. Disagreeing DOESN’T make me a hate-monger nor does it mean I am filled with rage or anger. It simply means I disagree.

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 11:04 AM | Link to this

Every time someone is called on their insulting remarks they’ve all said the same thing. “It was only a joke!” You’re right Mark, the Episcopalians, do have some problems. I’m not going to get into the details of differences between the faiths (That’ll be for another blog) The only reasons the pedophile Catholic priests haven’t been discussed is because nobody has brought it up. I agree with you about them.(except maybe the part about it happening for centuries - if you can prove it I would like to see that. But I want proof not perpetuated lies) They should be removed. Separate the goats from the sheep. Some of those crimes were purposely committed to ruin the credibility of those that wish to truly teach the faith. Why would that be done? Because people fear the power of faith. As an example, communist Russia prevented by law the Sacrament of Confirmation because they feared the empowering effect it had on the religious faithful. I am concerned about how you said we don’t have a single set of values though. I think I can show you that the Catholic Church hasn’t really changed its stance during its history.

By Zack

October 28, 2004 11:21 AM | Link to this

To say that this country must not make laws based on the Bible is wrong—COMPLETELY wrong.

If the Bible is not our guide, what will be? The answer is our personal prejudices, biases, etc., whatsoever suits the agenda of the majority. The Bible, on the other hand, has the best in store for everyone, better than we could ever even imagine for ourselves! It’s wonderful that our country was founded upon the Bible, tragic that we’ve moved away from it.

Diane Glass said John Kerry wouldn’t interfere with a woman’s “right to choose”, applauding him for not challenging women on this. This “right to choose”, mind you, violates another human’s right to be born, which, by definition, is unalienable. Do not be fooled by this kind of “reasoning” on her part. If her stance were correct, it would be unconstitutional also to have laws against drive-by shootings. After all, the driver firing the gun would just be making a choice, and it would be nowhere near as barbaric a death as abortion is.

Mark Wood, you said that the Christians on here had a lot of hatred and bias. Not at all, my friend. We’re not the ones promoting the killing of innocent babies, the attack on the institution of marriage, etc.. By the way, Angie seems to be the definition of a lady. Talk to her as such. If you want to talk about whoreship, confront a woman who is a whore and who wants to kill her baby instead of doing the “unthinkable” and accept the responsibility of motherhood. There’s a lot of that nowadays, sadly. There are a lot of whores out there, and they don’t mind committing murder. Then they ask you how many babies you’ve adopted in your lifetime.

As for not judging, we’re discerning right from wrong and standing against what is wrong, which is what we’re all supposed to do, and it’s impossible to know what’s right without reading the Bible.

By Angie

October 28, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

The politically correct opinion in this country is that no one can judge anybody else’s actions or disagree with anything anybody else does (aka “anything goes”). It seems to scare people to death the idea that there IS a God who WILL actually judge everybody one day. It seems to be this underlying fear that provokes people to attack Christians.

By Angie

October 28, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

Thank you Zach.

By Brian Curtis

October 28, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Zack: Regarding your comment… “To say that this country must not make laws based on the Bible is wrongâ€â€?-COMPLETELY wrong.”

Interesting. It may be “completely wrong,” but it’s also completely true. That’s exactly what the Constitution says. Christians may certainly propose and support laws that conform with their faith… but Congress must have a better rationale than one specific religion to pass such laws, and the President needs more than his own faith to justify enforcing them.

A national religion—i.e., laws enforcing one religious viewpoint over others—is explicitly illegal. There’s really nothing you can do about that.

It may be comforting to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is “afraid of the truth”—but the fact is, most of us simply hold beliefs that work well for us, and see no need to impose them on others. That, after all, is what makes a democracy great.

By norman

October 28, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

The best way to trick the public is to make them think the social issues really matter, whereas what really matters is the war and the economy. The Rich and the GOP always hoodwink the people by making them think abortion and the rest of the phoney social agenda means more than meat on the table. The redneck population of this country has been fooled time and again into supporting the agenda of the rich and abandoning their real interests. It is “pie in the sky in the by and by” again. Pray, read the bible and vote GOP and the poor you will always have with you.

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 12:10 PM | Link to this

Again, I have to laugh.

I have never heard (read) this much anger and hatred from people who claim to have the interest of humanity at heart.

To “save” others, you don’t criticize and condemn.

You are your own worst enemies.

By Zack

October 28, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—Please study the Constitution and U.S. History, preferably from a non-secular, unbiased source.

A law has to have a basis. The Bible is the perfect basis.

On the other hand, to legalize something like abortion is to impose a personal viewpoint that it’s okay to commit murder when “convenient”. Why don’t you criticize that? That is the definition of an unconstitutional act.

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Brian show me exactly where the Constitution says that! Every time you say that I reply asking you to prove it and every time you fail to do so. If the Constitution says that show us all where. Back up what you say! Mark why is it that’s the only way you respond to the questions we pose to you? Are you afraid to answer?

By Randy

October 28, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this

Again anyone who wants to ask a particular question. We can answer them, Christianity has been around for 2000 years. All answers are there, all you have to do is ask. Instead of making crazy remarks with no basis in fact.

By Brian Curtis

October 28, 2004 12:42 PM | Link to this

Come now… surely you’re familiar with the First Amendment, which makes the establishment of a national religion illegal!

Of course all laws have a basis—but that basis need not be a Christian one, or even a religious one at all. I’ve never seen any reference to traffic signals in the Bible, for example, and yet we have laws about them.

Boscoe: You seem hung up on specifics in the Constitution, as if the document were supposed to spell out all the minutia for us rather than establish basic operating principles. Interpreting and applying those principles to specific situations—such as school prayer, blue laws, pornography, KKK marches, etc.—is the entire function of a full 1/3 of our government: the judiciary.

Now, if you don’t like their interpretations, you’re free to argue against them and vote for officials who will replace them with ones more to your liking. But arguing against core Constitutional principles—such as a “Christians-only nation” being illegal—isn’t likely to get you very far.

By Brian Curtis

October 28, 2004 12:45 PM | Link to this

Side note on “imposing a viewpoint,” re abortion:

When was the last time anyone forced you, or anyone you know, to have an abortion? It seems that the protection of reproductive rights leaves you free to practice your faith without interference. If you think abortion is wrong, you’re free not to have one.

How is that “imposing a viewpoint”—unless you mean that it’s preventing you from imposing your personal beliefs on OTHERS who might disagree?

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 12:54 PM | Link to this

Sorry Boscoe.

I didn’t hear a question. Not one that was worth answering, anyway.

As for the debate about speration of church and state being in the constitution, you bible thumpers are right that those words weren’t used.

But, Brian wins this argument. The Constitution strictly prohibits the establishment of a state religion. The founders, all (or most) very devout Christians, saw the wisdom of this prohibition, having come from families who fled to this country to escape the religious persecution of those who did not agree with theirs.

I’m a carpenter and a sailor in my spare time. If you puritans would like to flee, I’ll help build the boat. I hear Haiti is beautiful this time of year.

By norman

October 28, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

Mark: build Boscoe an Ark.

By Lyrazel

October 28, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this

Why is it these issues are never discussed during elections?

To date, a total of $166 billion has been allocated for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the services are already scraping the bottom of the financial barrel and it is unclear how much more they are going to cost us. One low estimate assumes that increased violence in Iraq will push the cost of the war over budget by as much as $4 billion. However, this figure will only carry us through to the late summer and doesn’t take into consideration the billions in additional funding that’s needed for reconstruction efforts.

The majority of the $4 billion will fund the extended stay of some 20,000 troops at roughly $700 million more per month. Current reconstruction efforts will require at least another $500 million over the course of the next six months because of cost overruns. Additionally, the military has identified unmet funding needs for items such as equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in requests that did not make the defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for vehicle armor; $879 million for helmets, underwear, boots and other clothing; and $21.5 million for automatic weapons, just to name a few examples.

The Pentagon is saying that the war in Iraq is costing an estimated $4.7 billion a month, which doesn’t include the billion a month for continued efforts in Afghanistan. Up until now, all of these efforts have been funded through two emergency supplemental bills, but defense officials are now studying their annual budget, which runs through Sept. 30, to determine whether some money can be moved from purchase programs or other Pentagon accounts. However, since President Bush’s proposed budget does not provide for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress’s version of the bill is not likely to cover these costs either.

AND YET….

While the average social security recipient will receive a $228 cost of living increase in 2004, members of Congress will receive almost 15 times that, a whopping $3,400. In fact, since 2000, members of Congress have received more than $18,000 in automatic pay raises. On September 14, the House of Representatives got a $4,000 pay raise, increasing its salary to roughly $162,000 for next year.

Its all the other stuff both candidates are spewing that hide issues like these from the public. Elections are also being held on local levels—check out how your senators voted especially in this time of war and budget cuts.

By Zack

October 28, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—Again, you miss the point. We don’t have the right to make laws legalizing abortion. That’s murder. If we keep it legal, we need to be consistent and legalize all other forms of murder.

Mark Wood—I’m glad you notice the anger. Being angry about evil events occurring is truly a good sign.

By Akeya W.

October 28, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel-

I enjoy the fact that you are concerned about real issues.

It’s just sad that so much of your information falls on deaf ears because people keep jumping on their soapboxes about the same tired issues…

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 02:00 PM | Link to this

Being angry is not very Christian, although it is perfectly human.

If you want an ark for our friends, norman, I will need at least a little help. Can you swing a hammer like a famous Jewish carpenter I’ve heard some stirrings about?

By Brian Curtis

October 28, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

Zack: I think you may be missing a point as well—namely, that you have to prove that abortion is equivalent to murder before you can argue for its prohibition. It’s not an established fact—quite the contrary.

Plenty of people consider abortion the same as murder, of course. But they need more than religious faith to back that up. Otherwise, arguing for its prohibition is the same as Jews or Muslims arguing that pork should be outlawed—it’s imposing a specific religious belief on all Americans of all faiths. Which, of course, is unconstitutional.

And how did Christianity come to be identified with the anti-abortion position anyway? There’s nothing in the Bible to support it, so why do so many Christians obsess over it?

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 02:33 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Randy

October 28, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

Because murder is murder! I’m looking at my 9 month old grandbaby right now, how could anyone murder that precious innocent child?

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Core Constitutional Principals are you for real? Brian at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment, the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would create universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. But while careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of the superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving His boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions or school are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of worship from taxation for the support of State government. Mark the reason you won’t answer the questions is that you nothing reasonable to say. Be a man and admit it. It’s OK we already know. We get the fact that you are NOT as smart as you think. Go ahead say something intelligent. Sorry “OH YEAH” has been used way to much.

By Boscoe Roads

October 28, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this

Sorry Brian abortion has been outlawed longer than you think. Laws against abortion go back almost to when the Bible was written. History contains no mention of abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of the Greeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices. Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were condemned to work in the metal mines.The Sixth Ecumenical Council (687 AD)determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the goths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour.The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion.

By Randy

October 28, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. How we can kill innocent children, is beyond me. People who abort children are playing GOD. I can’t do it, I’m not GOD.

By Angie

October 28, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

Brian, believe it or not even if you take religion out of the abortion debate the fact remains that abortion ends the life (aka:murders) an innocent human life. Take religion out of it and let’s debate. In an unborn child you have a unique, seperate human being with it’s own blood type, it’s own fingerprints, it’s own body-at 3 weeks it’s own beating heart, etc.

Most women don’t know they’re pregnant until they miss their period. So by the time a woman finds out she’s pregnant the child already has a beating heart. Do you agree with that statement?

So, in an abortion the abortionist (by various means) destroys the life growing in the womb and thus stops it’s beating heart. Do you agree with that statement?

So, if during an abortion an unborn child’s life is ended and his or her heart is forced to stop beating doesn’t that mean the child was murdered?

What is YOUR definition of “murder”? Is it the killing of a person that is “wanted” by someone else? Is it the killing of a person of “value” to someone else. Is it the killing of a person that actually HAS a right to live?

The Laci Peterson Law/Act punishes a person for causing the death of an unborn baby. But they have a provision that excludes abortion. Isn’t this beyond ridiculous? What they’re saying is that an unborn baby is protected by law as long as it’s okay with the mother. In other words, if the mother wants the child to LIVE then anyone who harms it will be punished. But if the mother WANTS the child to die then she can go ahead and pay someone (an abortionist) to kill it.

This is absolutely RIDICULOUS! Some unborn have rights and others DON’T?!?!?!?????????????????

How insane is that!?

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Amanda Wallentine

October 28, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this

This constitution was based upon Christianity and a belief in something of higher power- God. To disregard your own religious beliefs and moral standards while making important decisions is unjust. Our government is a democracy, and that is why a candidate should proceed with his or her own beliefs and use them. If people do not agree with their morals or standards, then they can vote for another candidate. That is the beauty of this constitution, freedom of religion. and that most definetly applies to political candidates. To chose someone without those things such as a belief in god, would be dooming our country to immoral chaos. So, in answer to your question, yes, i do beleive and would pray that politicans would use their religious beleifs in campaigns and decisions.

By Brian Curtis

October 28, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this

Angie: This was covered in a prior thread. Actually, there’s no inconsistency at all if you recognize that a fetus is property rather than a person. The owner of said property has the right to destroy it if they want; but if others do so, it’s a crime.

Likewise, I agree that a fetus is a living thing. As such, any act that ends it life should be approached with gravity and caution. However, that’s not the same as saying “a fetus is the same as a person, with the same status and rights as a person.” Is a fetus alive? Of course. Is it a person? Of course NOT.

Boscoe: I’m not talking about ancient cultures and old church laws… I’m talking about the basis for laws in the United States. And those laws require a basis beyond the views of a specific religious sect before they pass muster as constitutional. Whether other cultures or nations have similar laws is no more relevant than whether European nations have gun control.

You’re right that the religious schisms most apparent in colonial times were between factors of Christianity… but the Founders’ principle that government cannot favor one sect over others applies just as well to beliefs utterly unrelated to Christianity, too. Again, I refer you to the central function of our judiciary: applying broad Constitutional principles to specific situations as they occur.

You suggest that “all must acknowledge… the Great Governor of the Universe.” But that’s precisely the point: we DON’T all have to acknowledge any such thing. Muslims follow a different god, as is their right. Ditto for Jews, Hindus, and countless other faiths. All those people are equally American as you or I, and deserving of the same respect and non-interference with their beliefs.

By ANGIE

October 28, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

Brian, you stated,”Is a fetus alive? Of course. Is it a person? Of course NOT.”

You should go get your dictionary and look up the word “fetus”. (You will probably find the words “unborn CHILD”.) Is a child NOT a “person”??? I guess not in your eyes.

By ANGIE

October 28, 2004 04:18 PM | Link to this

Brian, you also stated,” Actually, there’s no inconsistency at all if you recognize that a fetus is property rather than a person. The owner of said property has the right to destroy it if they want; but if others do so, it’s a crime.”

So, WHO made the grand decision that a fetus is “property”? Who came to that grand conclusion? Oh, the Supreme Court did during Roe v Wade? Right. So, basically you’re basing the idea that a fetus is property vs. a person on the findings of 9 PEOPLE???

By the way, the same thing used to be said about African American slaves. (But, hey, the Supreme Court justices are never wrong are they?)

Brian, is the unborn child “human”? Yes, you say. Well how can you consider any human as “property” instead of a “person”?

I suppose you think parents should be able to eliminate their older children too-since they are just “property”.

By Webster's Dictionary

October 28, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

Fetus- the unborn young of an animal, esp. in its later stages and specifically, in humnas, from about the eighth week after conception until birth.

Webster’s New World Compact School and Office dictionary co. 1989

By Wikipedia

October 28, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Fetus at eight weeksA fetus (alternatively foetus) is an embryo in later stages of development, from the third month of pregnancy until birth in humans.

By Webster's Online

October 28, 2004 04:27 PM | Link to this

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for fetus.

Main Entry: fe·tus Pronunciation: ‘fE-t&s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful — more at FEMININE : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

By Becca

October 28, 2004 04:27 PM | Link to this

Does anyone on these blogs have actual jobs???? Seriously, I’m a grad student so occassionally I get time to look through the blogs and I keep seeing the same 5-10 names over and over, week after week. If you actually have jobs, are you really doing anything?? If you don’t have a job, WHY NOT GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE! Seems like everyone (on both sides) needs to learn some manners, do some meditation or whatever, and chill. Have a lovely day :)

By mark wood

October 28, 2004 04:32 PM | Link to this

I still haven’t heard a question, Boscoe.

I also don’t have to quote (and misquote) sources to perpetuate my personal paranoia.

Yes. The founding fathers had faith. Yes. Every politician since has had faith, or at least claimed so. It is how you get elected. Call it absolution of the just cause. Or, quit looking at the world with blinders, and name it for what it is. Intimidation and fear.

The Old Testament.

Those were the good old days, weren’t they? An angry god who smote anyone that mad him angry. Hell, fire and damnation.

The world needs more of that.

Doesn’t it?

By Angie

October 28, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

An important emotional word often used in the abortion debate is “baby.” Baby has three major definitions.

The FIRST is “Small in comparison to others of the same kind.” “Human being” is “A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens,” which is true of embryos, fetuses, children, teenagers, adults, and everyone else with our similar genetic coding. Fetuses and embryos are small in comparison to other humans, so fetuses by this definition are babies.

The SECOND definition of baby is “a very young child.”One definition of “child” is “An unborn infant; a fetus.” So a baby is “a very young unborn infant; a fetus.”

The THIRD definition of baby is “The youngest member of a family or group OR a very young animal.” “Fetus,” a Latin word meaning “young one” fits these two definitions almost exactly. So, by all three relevant definitions of “baby,” a fetus is a baby.

Abortion is an induced termination of pregnancy and expulsion of a baby that is incapable of survival.

Expulsion is a word in our definition of abortion, but what does it mean? The definition of expel is “To force or drive out.” In the abortion definition, expulsion refers to the driving of a fetus or embryo out of its womb.

“Kill” is an interesting word that comes up often in an abortion debate. The main definition of this is “To put to death”. The second definition is “To deprive of life.”. “Deprivation” is “To hinder from possessing.”

The biological definition of “Life” is “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth… and response to stimuli.” Since the unborn baby has a metabolism, grows, and can react to stimuli (see Fetal Development), it by definition has life.

So let us look at our two definitions of “to kill.” If the fetus “is incapable of survival” outside of the womb and is “driven out” of the womb, it will die. Since it once was alive, and is dead after an intended abortion, the baby was, by this definition killed.

The second definition of “to kill” treats abortion in a slightly different way. If a fetus has the possibility to have life after birth and is “hindered from possessing” this because of an abortion, it is being killed just because of lost possibilities. Either way, the verb “to kill” is applicable for abortion.

Abortion is the induced termination of pregnancy of a killing a baby that is incapable of independent survival.

Murder: “To kill another human being.” As shown above, fetuses are by definition human beings. So killing a fetus is murder.

Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy murdering a baby.

Let’s look at two other semantic parts of abortion. Abortionists are those who perform abortions that murder babies. “Murderer” is defined as “One who murders another.” So abortionists, that murder babies, are murderers.

“Mass” is “a large number,” so a Mass Murder is “a large number of murders.” There are about 1.6 million abortions per year in the United States alone. The death toll of abortion is staggering: higher than any other event in known history. Abortion has already been defined as murder therefore we can call abortion a “mass murder.”

By Angie

October 28, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

Mark, how about more of the New Testament. Where our Lord and Saviour dies on the cross in our place. Where He rises on the third day. Where through faith in Jesus (and forgiveness of our sins) we can be saved and have eternal life in heaven with our loved ones.

By Akeya W.

October 28, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

You know,

We get it already.

The fact of the matter is that you all will keep yapping away about your beliefs on abortion and the truth is that no one is changing anyone else’s mind and you all sound like tape recorders.

Why not re-read the topic of the forum and stick to that.

This blog is getting quite boring and predictable.

At first I enjoyed the debate and different opinions. Now it’s just judging, name-calling, and childishness.

I think that you all just like to see yourselves type.

Everyone has proven that he/she is intelligent and has information to back up whatever side he/she is on.

There are pro-choice and anti-choice people on this blog.

GET OVER IT and MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES!

Sheesh…

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 08:51 AM | Link to this

All those people are equally American as you or I, and deserving of the same respect and non-interference with their beliefs. Brian, that’s the point, abortion, as well as other topics we’ve discussed, interferes with my religion. I cannot stand idly by why those, such as yourself, who have no such guidelines in which to live their life, and as such have no idea on the value of human life destroy it. We can’t both be right Brian. I gave you the principals of the nation at the time the Constitution was written. This whole separation of Church and State fiasco didn’t exist until the 1960s. All of a sudden in 1960 the world gets smarter with regards to religion? You can also parallel most of today’s social ills with the start of that ideology. Separating the people from religion weakens the nation. Sounds more like a plan to divide a nation rather than sound principals. Mark An angry god who smote anyone that mad him angry. Hell, fire and damnation. The world needs more of that. How do you know He is not angry now? What makes you think that won’t happen?

By norman

October 29, 2004 08:51 AM | Link to this

Akeya: they cannot move to other issues because these so-called social issues is the way the GOP elite hoodwinks the folks. Get them to concentrate on issues of no real importance or issues about which government can do little and they will forget about the economic and war issues which are really important. The GOP has been doing this for a hundred years.

Plus the fact that the evil religious mentality needs an outlet.

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 09:12 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, If he’s that angry (and all powerful but apparently not benign if he is capable of such anger) he shouldn’t have trouble finding me to smote me.
Hopefully, he’ll wait long enough to have a drink and a couple of laughs. I can show him this site. I’m sure he would be amused by the rantings of his faithful. Alas, it won’t happen. He doesn’t exist. Or, if he does, the state of the world, of humanity, shows he is too troubled with other things to worry about heathens like me. He must be wondering why his faithful are so venomous toward their unbelieving brethren. Why theose who are not so meek aren’t content to let others inherit the earth, but are determined to rule it with an iron hand and closed mind. Or, he may just be at a bingo parlor.

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 09:13 AM | Link to this

Mark you said Homosexuality is a crime only for those who ignore the love that every gay couple I have known shows. Question #1 Children’s books have been written AND distributed trying to justify this behavior. If homosexual partners were only interested in “Loveâ€? then why do thy feel it’s necessary to do thatI have never heard (read) this much anger and hatred from people who claim to have the interest of humanity at heart. To “saveâ€? others, you don’t criticize and condemn? Question #2 is then How is one saved Mark since you know so much about my religion to tell me it’s wrong? And there would be no USA because Christopher Columbus would have been executed as a blasphemer for insisting the world wasn’t flat. Question #3 Can you show me how the world being flat was a Church sponsored agenda of intimidation and fear?(Those are your words too).

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this

So basically Mark what you are telling me is that nothing bad can happen because God doesn’t exist. What about the hurricanes, the earthquakes, 9/11? Those aren’t bad things? OH I get it you mean bad things won’t happen to YOU because he doesn’t exist. As far as my inability to defend the faith was the level of kindness and heart the He had…I’ll just have to take that up with him. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you there are NO atheists in foxholes.

By Lyrazel

October 29, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this

Problem is they wont Ms. Akeya.

Day after day the same crowd loves telling the same people how wrong they are which totally obliterates any enjoyment other readers/responders might have with this column and its ideas. To be quite fair neither side presents anything beyond insults peppered with how their * does not stink. I have tried many have to keep the conversation toward issues important to the coming election and it becomes lost in a load of drivel and spew.. I hope the AJC comes back and its editors begin seeing these long irrelevant pastes perhaps they will put in a blog where everyone can call each other names and play third graders. You people: why fight? Why defend yourself and your beliefs over and over to ignoramus who just want to goad you and will goad you every time you respond to their ludicrous and childish na-na-na-na’s? I am sure you are all extremely intellegent and want to get your point across but truth is you make this a miserable experience for readers of this column by littering it with posts not worth reading if your names are attached. I value everyone’s opinion and their right to say it—we live in a country that tries to be fair to all people of all faiths—but to trivialize YOUR issues with endless banter of who-knows-more-than-whatever is so silly. State your peace, clarify with responce but dont stoop to their level and fuel their drivel with more *. Thanks Lyrazel.

By norman

October 29, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

There is no evidence there are no atheists in foxholes. Quite the contrary, when faced with despair intelligent minds realize the existential situation: that God either does not exist or does not care.

Boscoe has taken the novelistic story of an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was killed for sedition, believes in his impossible rising from the dead, thinks that somehow this shows God’s love and concern, and with a mishmash of ancient Semitic nonsense and a lot of wishful thinking arrives at his faith. This is “faith-based” stupidity. It is a terrible thing to waste a mind through faith.

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, my brother,

You amuse me more than I believed possible.

No atheists in foxholes. How…

How unoriginal of you, but predictable.

As far as childrens’ books perpetuating homosexuality, I can honestly say I have never seen one. Nor am I concerned that their are childrens’ books that accept homosexuality. Homosexuality is a fact of life, like it or not. I would rather children learn tolerance. It makes their getting into your heaven much more likely.

As far as salvation, I am sure you are more familiar with the forms I should fill out in my apparently necessary quest for it. But, based on the wisdom of your own faith, isn’t it the meek who will inheret the earth? That’s the rumor I heard for over ten years while attending schools affiliated with the church, including the four years it took to get my bachelor’s degree, where religion courses were a requirement, not an elective.

You aren’t meek, Boscoe. I’ll give you that.

And the Catholic church did perpetuate the belief that the world was round. That, you can find in numerous history texts. And, since you seem to enjoy researching such nonsense and using the cut and paste icons on your computer, I will let your fingers do the walking. You may even see that they perpetuated that myth in an effort to maintain control over their flock. Couldn’t have too many free thinkers. Might make them question the church’s authority. God forbid, anyone should think for themselves, even with scientific data in their possession. (Ever hear of a guy named Galileo?)

As far as bad things happening, I never suggested your proposed nonsensical presumption. S&$ happens. Bad s&$. On a daily basis. I pointed out that your god is too busy to care. He sure as hell isn’t doing anything about it. Well, except dangling the two carrots of heaven and hell.

It’s like an angry parent letting their kids fist fight to learn a lesson. Who’s the real idiot? The kids? Or the parent that stands idly by, watching his own flesh and blood try to harm more of his flesh and blood?

You can keep your god, Boscoe. And I hope, when the time comes, you are happy with your decision.

Me. I’ll be worm food. Fertilizing a tree or something. My body will rot. That will be the end of it. No more chemical reactions. (I just hope the Falcons win a Superbowl before then).

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, my brother,

You amuse me more than I believed possible.

No atheists in foxholes. How…

How unoriginal of you, but predictable.

As far as childrens’ books perpetuating homosexuality, I can honestly say I have never seen one. Nor am I concerned that their are childrens’ books that accept homosexuality. Homosexuality is a fact of life, like it or not. I would rather children learn tolerance. It makes their getting into your heaven much more likely.

As far as salvation, I am sure you are more familiar with the forms I should fill out in my apparently necessary quest for it. But, based on the wisdom of your own faith, isn’t it the meek who will inheret the earth? That’s the rumor I heard for over ten years while attending schools affiliated with the church, including the four years it took to get my bachelor’s degree, where religion courses were a requirement, not an elective.

You aren’t meek, Boscoe. I’ll give you that.

And the Catholic church did perpetuate the belief that the world was round. That, you can find in numerous history texts. And, since you seem to enjoy researching such nonsense and using the cut and paste icons on your computer, I will let your fingers do the walking. You may even see that they perpetuated that myth in an effort to maintain control over their flock. Couldn’t have too many free thinkers. Might make them question the church’s authority. God forbid, anyone should think for themselves, even with scientific data in their possession. (Ever hear of a guy named Galileo?)

As far as bad things happening, I never suggested your proposed nonsensical presumption. S&$ happens. Bad s&$. On a daily basis. I pointed out that your god is too busy to care. He sure as hell isn’t doing anything about it. Well, except dangling the two carrots of heaven and hell.

It’s like an angry parent letting their kids fist fight to learn a lesson. Who’s the real idiot? The kids? Or the parent that stands idly by, watching his own flesh and blood try to harm more of his flesh and blood?

You can keep your god, Boscoe. And I hope, when the time comes, you are happy with your decision.

Me. I’ll be worm food. Fertilizing a tree or something. My body will rot. That will be the end of it. No more chemical reactions. (I just hope the Falcons win a Superbowl before then).

By Angie

October 29, 2004 09:58 AM | Link to this

So, according to the liberals the topics of abortion and God are (to quote norman) “issues of no real importance”.

Hmmm…let’s think about that. Abortion has taken the lives of 45,000,000 (yes,MILLION) children and left millions of women (and men) suffering-but that’s NOT an important “issue” to discuss.

Oh yes, and God is the creator of the universe and all living things including man and woman. He loves us and offers us a way to be saved and have eternal life-but (according to you) He’s NOT important either.

I see…you want to talk about the REALLY important issues like gay people wanting to marry.

And let’s not forget that we Christians who stand up for what we believe (the sanctity of life, protecting our children, family values and morals) have an “evil religious mentality”.

Yeah, the things we stand for are pure “evil”. We should just do away with this crazy notion of right and wrong and just “go with the flow” and give up on having morals or values. We should show our kids that anything goes and nothing really matters. I mean, with more and more people living this way over the past 40 years just look at how much BETTER the world is now.

We’ve taken prayer out of school and taught kids that unborn babies have no value. Look at the Columbine incidents-why do you think they don’t value life or seem to understand right from wrong???Hmmmmm…..

We’ve made abortion legal and promoted the idea and acceptance of homosexuality. Look at the effects on marriage (why get married when we can abort our child), unwed mothers (men saying ‘just get an abortion’ and walking away), promiscuity (doesn’t matter if you get pregnant you can always kill it), AIDS & other STD’s, and the family (the old fashioned idea of a man and woman getting married, having children and being a family).

Yes, a family can be made up of alot of different people. You don’t HAVE TO have a dad around. But it’s BETTER for the child if you do. But our society doesn’t CARE what’s BEST for the children. It’s all about ME…not my children. The men in this country have forgotten what it means to BE a man. To be monogomous, to stay with your children, to keep the family together once you make one.

I know, I will be heavily slammed by the usual people for my beliefs…but that’s okay. They’re my beliefs (and the beliefs of millions of other Christians) and we should stand up for what we believe. Everyone has that right-Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc…

By the way, have any of you heard the latest threat by Al Quieda (sp?)? To the Kerry supporters-what would Kerry do to protect America and keep us safe? (Just curious.) (Please don’t give me his web address this time.) Thanks.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 10:05 AM | Link to this

moving swiftly away from the Turnip Green Truck that Angie fell off of

Lyrazel,

I fear that you’re right. It amazes me how all of the other issues of importance have been buried. It was completely missed that there are other issues more important abortion and gay marriage, which are, in my opinion, things that we shouldn’t have the right to vote on anyway.

Please continue to enlighten this darkened blog with your facts and questions, Lyrazel. I’m listening, at least. Plus-no one seems to ever challenge things that you say. I think it may be because people have the tendancy of only studying up on 1-2 things that really bother them rather than looking at the bigger picture.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

Real issues to me are things like:

Will I be able to collect social security that I’ve been contributing to since I was 16 years old?

Will my son be forced to fight in wars that he doesn’t agree with and run the risk of being killed, even though he never signed up voluntarily in the first place?

Why do I work so hard every day, pay ALL of my bills BEFORE they’re do, yet I work with so-called low income people who seem to live better than I do?

Why does our government coddle people who don’t even TRY to take care of themselves and their families?

Will our country be an enemy to the world because we have a president that thinks that we somehow stand alone in this world and no one else and their cultures, religions matter?

Will I be able to afford good healthcare for myself and my son?

Is my privacy protected, or will I be forced to share the most intimate parts of my person with all the world, linked to my SSN and other identifying information?

How will our nation manage if we are spending record numbers of dollars on a “war” that we think we’re winning, but only seems to be fueling the fire?

Will I be forced to comply with the morals and beliefs of someone else whose beliefs differ from those of mine?

Will my son have a decent world to live in when he’s older? What will the quality of air and water be like?

and the list goes on…..

By Angie

October 29, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

…rolling my eyes, shaking my head, yawning, raising an eyebrow, taking a sip of Diet Coke, scratching my head, etc, etc, etc…AND hoping Akeya doesn’t fall off that dang ole turnip green truck

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

Hmmm… wonder if this is what Angie’s list looks like:

Uh oh, they’re cutting my health insurance.. what am I going to d…Hey, you!! get away from that abortion clinic!

Oh no, my privacy is being seriously violated! I don’t want them being able to look up my inf…ARGH!!!! IS that woman going into that abortion clinic-where are my picket signs…

Hmmm… looks like the nation has a serious issue with the deficit. I wonder where all of the money is goi…Oh NO!!!! They haven’t overturned Roe V. Wade?!?!

Uh oh, they’re going to attack us again. Oh well, at least they’ll kill all of those women having abortions and evil gay people trying to get married. Maybe terrorism is a GOOD thing….

By Angie

October 29, 2004 11:11 AM | Link to this

Akeya, your last comments were just plain ridiculous.

Just because I have tried to explain my beliefs on God and abortion deosn’t mean I don’t care about other issues. Somewhere along the line people brought up abortion and I’ve tried to explain my position. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about other issues. And when people repeatedly mock and laugh at God it drives me to try and counter their attacks. Doesn’t mean I don’t want to discuss other issues.

In fact, why don’t we discuss those issues you brought up.

What do you propose we do about social security, welfare, healthcare costs, our right to privacy, the draft and the quality of air?

I would love to hear your opinions and those of others on these issues. They concern all of us and we need to discuss them. What do you propose we do to solve these problems? I would like to hear your solutions.

(Remember the topic was about a president using faith as a guide. That’s why religion was an issue. People tied abortion to religion and it spun off from there.)

By Angie

October 29, 2004 11:19 AM | Link to this

Akeya-killing women about to have abortions and killing evil gay people???

Who’s the extremist here?

WHO wants to kill women or gay people???

Oh, that’s right…I can’t disagree with abortion or homosexuality unless I hate women & gays and want them wiped off the face of the earth. I forgot.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

My last comments were MEANT to be ridiculous, because that is my interpretation of you from what I’ve read of your posts. The first time that we communicated I could understand your point of view. Now it just seems that you are on a 4 man brigade to outlaw abortions.

If this interpretation is incorrect, show me.

What else is a concern for you other than another woman’s decision about what her future entails.

Yes, I understand what the topic was about, but it still seems that there are some bloggers who have completely forgotten about it.

I know that I was infamous for this on the last topic, but reading back over it I realized that no one comes here to read me post my opinion over and over again. At least not the same tired opinions repeatedly.

Move on, already…

By Zack

October 29, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

Angie—Would you expect anything else coming from Akeya? What’s worse about her lack of understanding is her personal belief that she does understand.

Akeya—You complained about the forum yesterday and wanted it improved. If you’d like it improved, here’s an easy step: Leave.

By Zack

October 29, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this

Angie—Would you expect anything else coming from Akeya? What’s worse than her lack of understanding is her personal belief that she does understand.

Akeya—You complained about the forum yesterday and wanted it improved. If you’d like it improved, here’s an easy step: Leave.

By Zack

October 29, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, there are many other people in this world who are just as flippant about the world’s problems as you are.

You think abortion is a mother’s decision, huh? When a woman has sex, she already has made her decision.

Another forumer said yesterday that there was no proof that life began at conception. You can make that statement all day long. However, you cannot give an ounce of support for that statement.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Zack,

I thought I asked you to discontinue communication with me in the e-mail that I sent in response to your stalker e-mail to me?

As I’ve stated before, you don’t know anything about me.

You are, for some reason, obsessed with making me look like a terrible person.

And why wouldn’t you expect someone to get tired of hearing people spew the same crap repeatedly.

Do you think I’m the only one? Haven’t you all noticed that there do not seem to be any new bloggers sharing their opinions?

Most of the religious people that I know are very peaceful, but you’ve have proved to be the exact opposite of them.

Keep my name off of your keyboard and out of your head.

shaking head

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 12:22 PM | Link to this

Anyone like to gamble?

Gentleman’s bet, since gambling is a sin and illegegal, of course.

Who will whip out the dictionary first to give us a definition of “conception?” Zack? Angie? Boscoe?

My money, if this were legal and not so morally wrong, would be on Angie.

Any takers?

By norman

October 29, 2004 12:23 PM | Link to this

Akeya: you are probably right that most religious people you know are peaceful. The ones I know are peaceful as well. But there is a sort of believer who is so fanatic in his belief and so fearful of dissent, lest it all be found baseless, that he will if pushed resort first to verbal aggression and in the end actually to physical violence. We see that in Islam where most Muslims are peaceful but the violent ones have every justification in the religious teaching for their aggression. Islam is just a more primitive form of the same Semitic religious nonsense which led to Christianity and Judaism.
Boscoe and Angie are in the verbal phase of aggression but if not appeased they will eventually draw out the knife.

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this

Mark the question was “If homosexual partners were only interested in “Loveâ€? then why do thy feel it’s necessary to do that?” Which again you didn’t answer. Taken from Christopher Columbus by Thomas C. Tirado, Ph.D. Professor History Millersville University Columbus’ idea of sailing west to get to the east was not original with him, nor did he ever claim that it was. Columbus drew upon the science and knowledge accumulated over millennia. In Greek and Roman times, for example, cosmographers theorized that there was only one body of water on the surface of the Earth that connected both Europe and Asia. If so, one could, theoretically, sail from the west to get to the east. Only the distance was in dispute.Since antiquity there had been theories that held that earth was spherical in shape. Finally, it should be mentioned that Columbus had managed to collect a large number of books over the years; a few of them in particular left a deep impression. Without a doubt, the Bible was a great source of inspiration to Columbus. He drew heavily from it and took his name, “Christ Bearer,” seriously, believing, in fact, that he had a divine mission to accomplish. Influencing Columbus’ developing image of the globe were Pope Pius II’s Historia Rerum ubique Gestarum, published in 1477 and it was the Church that furnished the means (17,000 ducats) for the admiral’s first voyage. Mark, complain as you may about a cut and post, (I always give credit when I do) this particular cut and post shows you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. You’ve repeated the lies about the Church so much you beleive them. This is the big one though Mark I heard for over ten years while attending schools affiliated with the church, including the four years it took to get my bachelor’s degree, where religion courses were a requirement, not an elective. You will bash and beat the Church in the ground NOW but while you were in school, a school of your own choosing, you didn’t have the ability to stand up to it then did you? Only after you obtained your degree did you find the courage — How heroic of you!

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 12:43 PM | Link to this

Norman, the phrase “there are no athiests in foxholes” is a metaphor. You know what a metaphor is don’t you? Lyrazel, the question of the day is about faith and politics. The last I knew economics was not a faith based topic and if you really don’t like the comments leave and go make your own blog this one isn’t yours.

By norman

October 29, 2004 12:56 PM | Link to this

But Boscoe, metaphors are supposed to convey some reality. But people like you are not interested in reality, just in theory.

As for Lyrazel, you have no right to try to excommunicate her from the blog. But tolerance is not in your antique Semitic violent nature. Kill for Moloch, Kill for Astarte, Kill for Jehovah, Kill for Allah. KILL KILL KILL.

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

As I figured Norman you don’t know what a metaphor is do you? I think you were dropped on your head one to many times Norman.

By norman

October 29, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: you cannot even spell atheist correctly. Left brain, right brain, no brain.

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 01:31 PM | Link to this

Norman, I’m not the one who professed to be an Ivy League Scholar so I’m sorry I misspelled ATHEIST. Does that mean I’ll receive extra lashings because I’m a Christian AND a bad speller?

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, buddy.

I did choose my college. I also questioned the religious part of my education. Believe it or not, I was actually encouraged to do so by the very professors teaching me. They had their faith. Real faith. They did not fret about those who questioned it. They were strengthened by it. And, almost twenty years after graduating, they still respect my chosen point of view as much as I respect theirs. They never felt the need to convert me. To shove their faith down my throat. I see them all at least once a year. I am not just welcome in their homes, but encouraged, despite being a heathen.

And you’ll really get a kick ot of this, although I am sure you won’t believe it. My room mate from those memorable days is now a minister. More than once, because I care about people more than I have or ever will about doctrine, he said I was the most christian person he had ever met. And he knew I was an atheist. His attitude hasn’t changed, nor have my opinions.

Salvation is earned from the heart, Boscoe. It is not simply given to those shouting loudest and longest. Nor to those who can quote the most versus from the bible. I’m not worried about my soul, because I do not believe I have one. You, however, seem very concerned. There must be a reason for that. Perhaps, guilt?

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mark, but just so you know I’m not concerned about my soul either. I don’t know how you connect the posting of my opinions on this blog as forcing my beliefs down your throat. It’s an opinions column. That’s what you do hear. I am no more forcing mine on you as you are on me. What I won’t do is allow people to trample upon religion. If you don’t like these opinions, and this applies to myself as well, leave. It’s that simple. Salvation is not a result of being nice to others regardless of what they represent. Please don’t coach me about salvation when you don’t believe in it anyway.

By Angie

October 29, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this

norman made the comment,“Boscoe and Angie are in the verbal phase of aggression but if not appeased they will eventually draw out the knife.”

Why is it aggressive to explain your beliefs? Nowhere on this forum did I hear any Christian try to force anyone else to become a Christian. I have heard opinions expressed which IS what this forum is supposed to be for.

The non-Christians hurl insults at the Christians and yet we are the ones showing aggression?

And because I consistently stand up for what I believe-especially when attacked and insulted-I am supposed to resort to violence because not everyone shares my viewpoints? come on norman

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

Ah. I don’t recall saying I had to be nice to others, Boscoe. You don’t either. But I do find I actually like people. People who agree with me. People who don’t.

The angrier you get, the more fascinated and amused I become.

You believe, vehemently, but you undermine your own faith. You, not me, make christians look silly, petty.

And I wasn’t coaching you, brother. I was pointing out what is clear to even a child newly introduced to your religion.

By Boscoe Roads

October 29, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this

Mark I believe you said this I would rather children learn tolerance. It makes their getting into your heaven much more likely. Isn’t getting to heaven salvation? As I said don’t coach me on a salvation you don’t believe in. Don’t confuse my affinity for anger either Mark. I enjoy the debate but anger it isn’t. What I would like to know is how I undermine my faith as you suggest?

By Randy

October 29, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

So the topic today is “does God exist”. This is not a topic which comes up often, as 95-97% of americans believe in GOD. However, I guess we have a few people here who have not thought it through. The absolute reason here is, that no matter how far back in time you go, billions of years etc. The earth, sun, universe and even life itself had to come into existance at some point. Since things don’t appear out of thin air(remember physics class) a “CREATOR” must exist. The only argument possible against this is that the universe exists eternal, or that it has always existed. This argument was cast out as the universe is running out of usable energy(2 law of thermodynamics), so if the universe is running out of energy, it can not be eternal. The second line of reasoning is, the scientific law of “CAUSALITY”, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself. It can be stated as follows: 1)the universe had a beginning 2) anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else 3) therefore, the universe was caused by something else and the cause was a creator, we call him GOD. Conclusion, a creator has to exist, there is no doubt, to anyone who has thought it through! As we have scientific evidence, that proves that a Creator did indeed create the universe.

By Randy

October 29, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this

Mark, Norman, others who don’t know, that they don’t know. Ask us the questions, we have answers to all doubts, I for one am here to help. But you need to have a open mind, let the truth lead to where it leads.

By Angie

October 29, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Randy, Boscoe and Zack-great job defending our beliefs. (Zack-sorry for mis-spelling your name previously.)

After knowing everything Christ did for us and how He suffered on our behalf it’s just hard to believe some people wouldn’t want the free gift of salvation.

But to be saved you have to admit you’ve sinned and that’s something these people don’t want to do. It’s easier for some people to not believe in God and to not believe in right & wrong. That way you don’t have anyone to answer to and can do anything you want.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 04:00 PM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By Randy

By Zack

October 29, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

Akeya—Stalking e-mail? Haha. Good one, liar.

If the Akeyas of the world had it their way, we’d all go through life ignoring the problems of the world and attack those who stood for what’s right.

Angie—Yes, there is a lot of name-calling from non-Christians to Christians. Many become desperate quickly when they realize they have no supporting paragraphs to support their thesis sentences, so they simply turn to name-calling as a smokescreen. Thankfully, there are several on this forum who don’t have a distorted view of our nation’s beginnings and who know abortion is simply injustifiable homicide.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By Zack

October 29, 2004 04:12 PM | Link to this

Let’s also remember that we were attacked by muslims on September 11 because that’s part of their faith. Some might be offended, but it’s true. It seems that people would be more concerned with that than a Christian stance for the unborn, for example.

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 04:17 PM | Link to this

95 -97% of Americans believe in god.

That is the most far fetched thing I have ever heard in my life.

What web site did you find this information on. “Agree with me or else.”

You people take yourselves so seriously, you can’t even hear how foolish you sound.

95-97%! If that’s the case, I know every single member of the 3-5% that don’t believe. And I haven’t been to a fraternity party in years.

Zack, you make Boscoe and Angie sound like the most intelligent human beings alive. Thank you for being on their side of the debate.

By Akeya W/

October 29, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By Angie

October 29, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

Zack—I couldn’t agree more! The silence is deafening-I mean, my goodness, they couldn’t say anything bad about Muslims because it wouldn’t be politically correct. You can’t attack others for their faith…wait a minute…that should read you can’t attack anyone unless they are a Christian.

Christianity=fair game.

All other religions=off limits.

Zack, Randy & Boscoe-have a great weekend and God Bless You for taking a stand for the Lord and for the unborn.

By Brian Curtis

October 29, 2004 04:27 PM | Link to this

“Someone brought up abortion” because someone ALWAYS brings up abortion. For some folks, every election is about a single issue… which is exactly how the politicians want it.

Akeya has made a number of good points that no one has bothered to answer. President is a JOB. And one of the main duties of that job is to protect the rights of all citizens as outlined in the Constitution. That means putting freedom ahead of promoting your own personal beliefs—respecting the rights of others who disagree with your faith, even its most cherished commandments.

Someone who’s “a Christian first and a president second” cannot do that job because he’ll be violating the rights of non-Christians with every action. And if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be in the office.

To use a trivial example: If you want to prosecute everyone who “takes the name of the lord thy god in vain,” you can’t be president. Why? Because it’s not illegal. YOU may follow that dictate personally—as is your right—, but it’s not required of any other Americans and you can’t make it required. And as president, it’s your job to protect the rights of those non-Christians to disagree with you. Suck it up and deal, Mr. President.

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 04:29 PM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By Angie

October 29, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

Yep, it’s 4:30…time for Mark to log on and start with the insults again. (Very predictable.)Everybody roll up your pants legs and put your boots on….

By Akeya W.

October 29, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

No, I do not think that it is appropriate for a president to use his faith as a guide in making policy decisions.

The president has to deal with leaders from countries with religions and beliefs that differ from ours.

I would say that it is unfair for a president to use his/her faith as a guide, as his/her beliefs may be offensive or in total opposition to those of other countries.

America is not an island which stands alone on this planet. We live with billions of other people whose cultures, religions and beliefs differ greatly from ours.

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this

Zack, Angie, and others,

You still don’t get it. Most of my closest friends are christian. I do not hold that against them. I really don’t even think about it.

It is the fanatics that concern me, and hopefully everyone else.

As far as bringing up Muslims. Please. Listen to your own drivel.

FANATICAL muslims, not the average faithful of Islam, attacked America. It was those who would impose their religion, their morality, on others. Not those who are more concerned with putting the next meal on the table.

And, I should point out, Zack, you were more guilty of keeping the abortion debate going than anyone else. Are you hoping your last blog would make us forget over the weekend?

That is the cheapest shot all week, and I was hoping I would be given that honor.

By norman

October 29, 2004 04:50 PM | Link to this

People of Faith. Sounds good, doesn’t it, in the words of someone like Ralph Reed or another GOP publicist?

Well, what faith? The one which for 2000 years has with sado-masochistic dedication taught man to be alienated from his own nature and from the nature of things? Hardly. People of Faith — when I hear that I reach for my 2nd amendment protected gun.

By Angie

October 29, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

So Mark, how exactly do you define the word “fanatic”? (I know, here comes the various webster, miriam dictionaries.)

Is it that someone who believes strongly in their faith is a fanatic. And someone who never discusses their beliefs with anyone (i.e. being politically correct) is NOT.

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

Angie.

I am delighted you were thinking of me.

And I wouldn’t want to disappoint.

Today, a joke.

Did you hear about the rabbi, the priest and the prosritute…

By Angie

October 29, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

Mark, if you have Christian friends then you must have never discussed God with them or called them idiots for believing in Him. Not a good way to make or keep friends-the name calling and insults. I also assume your Christian friends never discuss God with you since it makes you so angry (you know, the discussion of God and Jesus).

By mark wood

October 29, 2004 05:10 PM | Link to this

angie,

you type faster than my hookup can handle. My last post hasn’t even popped up. And I don’t have enough time to explain fanaticism.
Fret not, though, there is always next week. These posts never stick to the subject anyway.

I’ll try not to disappoint.

(By the way, you think Boscoe or you could help with the research? This technology is so confusing now that I am rethinking my views about god.)

By Sherri Jones

November 5, 2004 05:53 PM | Link to this

I’ve only recently begun reading Woman to Woman, but I’ve already noticed a trend, Ms. Glass. Sometimes, you like to contradict yourself. For instance, above in your rebuttal re: faith-driven politics, you mentioned first that, “Faith depends on very specific teachings on historic facts and future events.” Then later you say, “Faith isn’t based on facts but beliefs, no matter how much Shaunti would like to convince us otherwise. Hence the phrase, “leap of faith.â€? If a thing is clearly evident, no leap is necessary. We would just assert the truth.”

I don’t mean to point out your errors in over-analysis or offfend you, but I also think that you, like any intellectual, spends too much time running laps around yourself and your ideas. I’ve spent a lot of time in the intellectual girls’ locker room, and I’ve worn myself out with all that running. Your intellectual battles are irresolute, and you have to realize that you are running an endless race with no finite beginning and end.

FAITHLESS faith is not concrete, but should you decide to hang up your intellectual pom-poms and truly HAVE faith in something, your ideas will have concrete meaning to you, and also be backed by your faith. You exist and were created the way you were with true intent, a God-given purpose. I respect your passion. You’re very smart. But I think you should stop trying to “outsmart” yourself. I think your efforts and energy would be much more convincing if you truly believed in something yourself. You are not just “lucky dirt” with a couple really great degrees and credentials. You have substance and meaning. And you’ve also been blessed with an amazing vehicle - this editorial - to reach millions of people, a luxury many are envious of.

By LEORA P. , Sharpsburg

November 11, 2004 12:09 PM | Link to this

I think that Diane’s “prediction” about the president who uses faith as a factor to decide things will become like the killers Saddam, Stalin, and Hitler was just plain heinous. She just threw that in there to give bad images to readers on the fence, and not only is it completely ill-based, but it contradicts what this country was founded on. This great country of America was based on Christian principles, dedicated to God, and discovered by people seeking freedom to worship God. Jesus Christ came to this earth and died for our sins in great love for EVERY single person. Period. I wish more people would realize that and appreciate that Bush is supporting not only his personnal beliefs but the beliefs that are at the roots of this country and should continue to be the base of America.