Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
It’s the weekend!
Today’s quote is from an American humorist: “We don’t seem to be able to check crime, so what not legalize it and then tax it out of business?”
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top168 Comments to “Whirled Views 11.8”
On the “Conservative leaders react” thread yesterday, Thomas (3) made an interesting statement to the effect that Obama may be articulate enough to advance the liberal agenda as effectively as Reagan did for the conservatives. At least, it’s their hope. I began to ponder this and asked, “What is the liberal agenda?” So, I listed what I thought that agenda might be. Not being liberal, I may have misstated, so I’m open to correction. A professor once told me, “Unless you can state a man’s position so that he will agree, ‘Yes, that’s what I believe”, you haven’t correctly understood his position.”
I may have missed some
So, Here’s my interpretation. Tell me where I’m wrong, and what I’ve missed.
A liberal manifesto
1a. Homosexual marriage nationwide.
1b. Remove “don’t-ask-don’t tell” in military.
1c. Equal Rights Amendment.
1d. Women in combat units
2. Abortion on demand nationwide (Freedom of Choice), government financing for indigent.
3. Energy independence
3a. Prohibitions against drilling for oil offshore, and in Alaska.
3b. Nuclear plants prohibited.
3c. Severe cap-and-trade restrictions on coal plants and oil refineries.
3d. Mandates on usage of ethanol, electrical appliances, automobile mileage, etc.
4. Socialized medicine.
5a. Religion confined to church property. (Don’t quibble on this, it’s the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and NPR position.)
5b. Legislation against “hate speech”.
5c. “Fairness doctrine”
6a. School children will be instructed to new sexual mores.
6b. Parental instruction contrary to accepted views is “child abuse”.
7. Make U.S. laws adhere to U.N. referendums.
8a. War on Terror conducted as criminal issues.
8b. Civil rights for all terrorist captives.
9.a Amnesty and citizenship paths for all illegal aliens.
9.b Remove restrictions on border crossings.
10. Withdraw military support from Israel.
11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation.
12. Restrictions on firearm ownership.
13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
13b. Hidden taxes through corporate taxation.
14 Destroy Sarah Palin (and probably Bobby Jindal), since no other viable Republican is out there.
15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
16 Reparations for slavery. However I suspect this is too hot to handle, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up.
I’m saving this, and corrections/additions to monitor progress.
Report comment to moderator
chas post 1,
not too bad a list, BUT I challenge:
3b) not nuclear plants prohibited. Nuclear plants encouraged BUT with a clear effort to address safgety and nuclear waste storage issues
4) socialized medicine: Obama’s policy is specficially to allow you to keep yout present helath insurance. It was McCain who provided a policy which . A better statement mioght be government guarenteed medical insurance would apparently undermined the employer provided insurace.
A better statement might be government assurance that everyone would have medical insurance.
5) a better statement would be religion out of government. It can indeed be in the public square, but not government endoresed or supported.
6b) you need to be more specfici here, it is unclear what you are referring to
7) a better phraeology is that the U.S. will comply with international law: for exaple we have been in violation of international law on torture for the recent past.
9b) nonsense: everyone wants reasonable border control
10) tell me about Rohm?
13a) no it is a tax increase on families earning more than $250K, but if you believe they are lieing , then we will have to watrch
13b) corporations have always been taxed by every administration. It was briefly a conservative proposal I think to introduce a value added tax which indeed is truly hidden.
14) I suggest that the Republican party is doing just fine at destroying Sarah Palin.
15) is a given no matter who became president: we are now running massive deficits
16) hmm, and your source here?
I woudl add that conservatvies seem to have as a basic policies:
1) elimination of all government regulation
2) outlawig all abortion
3) outlawuing hoomosexual marriage
I suggest that if you compare the two lists, the American public is more intune with the liberal list than the conservative list.
Report comment to moderator
Chas
Wrong in several areas.
1a It’s more likely that dems will promote some kind of civil union arrangement. That was the preference of both Obama and Clinton when they were running and if you look at the dem controlled states in the Northwest and Northeast that is what the majority of them have done.
3a It seems dems have listened to the country and loosened up on offshore drilling. One can see that from the House bill on the same topic several months ago. And there is drilling in Alaska, just not in ANWR.
3b Obama has said that he does not oppose nuclear energy but that he does want the safety issues looked at. That doesn’t seem like an insane approach (Chernobyl, anybody remember that?)
5a Sorry, doesn’t pass the laugh test. The ACLU and Americans United are a small sliver of the dem constituency.
5b yes, but as a part of hate crimes having to do with sentencing. Not like the laws in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Latin America, etc.
7 doesn’t pass the laugh test
8a yes and no. The US military and intel apparatus will still be used appropriately. What is likely to change are the military tribunals which aren’t really working out that well.
8b right. Because returning to the Constitution is such a bad thing …. Because banning the use of torture is so inimical to our values …?
9 b doesn’t pass the laugh test
10 patently absurd
11 when did negotiation become an evil thing?
13a paranoia.
15 I don’t think so. Obama supports increasing the size of the military.
16 ROFLMAO. Obama opposes reparations.
It is as entertaining to read far right distortions of “the liberal agenda” as it is to read far left distortions of “the right wing agenda”.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, CB, I would honestly like to see what you believe the conservative agenda is.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll let others deal with the distortions and missed priorities; my observation is that it’s a whole lot more substantive than the impossibly limited and unachievable evangelical agenda that I tried to get folks to explore yesterday.
We got as far as abortion, homosexuality and maybe school prayer.
That was it.
My question was, what is it that CCR’s want that the rest of R’s or even D’s don’t necessarily want? And, for issues which we haven’t explored before, what is the biblical authority?
Report comment to moderator
“6b) you need to be more specfici here, it is unclear what you are referring to”
Telling my child that any sex he wants is okay as long as he uses birth control and if that doesn’t work, we’ll provide your girlfriend with a free abortion.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 4,
see the last points in my post 2.
Report comment to moderator
I thought “CCR’s” had been prohibited along with the name given to the liberals??? What happened? So much for change on the part of our lefty friends here.
Excellent list, Chas. I would modify one word in 6b “accepted” to “accepted by leftys” or something similar, because I doubt we have the same meaning of “accepted views” as they do.
We DO NOT have religion in government. Get it through your heads. The US government has not endorsed any religion. The fact that the leftys have a psychological problem in facing the reality that believers exist and will continue to exist should be once and for all dealt with by the leftys. See a psychiatrist or get some electroconvulsive therapy. This attitude is why leftys need the Fairness Doctrine — they can’t face reality, they can’t face criticism, so like the despots they are, they have to silence people from believing and thinking anything contrary to what they want. It never fails to astound me that they claim they want freedom and then do everything to kill it, but killing is the lefty way.
Moreover, the only “evangelical agenda” I know about is to be prepared for Christ’s return. That leftys have a problem with evangelicals having a voice in how their nation moves along proves AGAIN their desire to control people. They can’t accept that evangelicals are citizens with a vote. Evangelicals may be more in number than the ACLU, etc., but they don’t sue at the drop of the hat — though I hope they will in the next few years every time the leftys try to quash exercising a sincerely held beliefs. I have said before that the next decades will be filled with Supreme Court cases on the free exercise clause.
Considering the Dems themselves changed the 250k number the week before the election to 150k, then 125k, because even they have said they have to lower expectations, I see tax increases, too. And when GM and Ford get their bailout, how are we paying that one? Printing more money or taxing more people? I hear the word “sacrifice” coming — and it will be people, not corporations or banks that have messed up, who will be footing the bill. To that end, we in NJ would be happy to send Jon Corzine as Secretary of the Treasury. Please take him. That, however, is probably a traitorous idea, because we all know he couldn’t clean up the national mess any more than he has cleaned up NJ. It’s about spending, and no Dem stops spending. Dems can’t do the hard thing, and they won’t now, anymore than they did with FDR, when the passed law after law that was declared unconstitutional. They prolonged the depression, they’ll prolong this.
And yes, homosexual marriage should be outlawed in favor of family. For once, do something FOR society as a whole, rather than against. Instead of changing the meaning of words, it would be helpful if homosexuals could finally face reality the marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 6,
well you have not shonw me how your contrary view is then considered child abuse?
Sex education makes no startements perse about morality. it does make specfici statements about technical mattrers, and in particular the import of birth control and protection against STD.
I think you will find that no one is arguing that if you insist that sex should only occur after marriage, that this is chilkd abuse.
If you diagree (remember the child abuse statement) your references?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 8,
tell me about the following issues:
1) teaching creationism in school (see Dover PA)
2) insistence on Chirstian religious expression on fpublic property (c.f. 10 commandments in courts, nativity scenes on public property)
I suggest your statement regarding the intent of certain Christians is not supported byu the evidence.
Report comment to moderator
4. Sorry Musing is I see you did that at the end of your post.
Now change 1)to reducing government regulations to a manageable and reasonable level. 2) is about right. 3)I could live with civil unions if you got rid of all the anti-discrimination laws that say I have to cater your wedding or help you adopt a child.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 8,
now the number that I have seen all along are:
families over $250K: marginal tax rate at the Clinto era tax rates
families between $150K – $250K: no change
families under $150K: tax reduction
Do you have references showing otherwise?
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 11,
I believe I can acept your modifications if you wish, although I note that there is resistance to civil unions in some camps.
So it would seem I have your perspective reasonably well captured then.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 8,
actually civil marriage is a civil contractual arrangement.
As such it is increasingly viewed as a civil rights issue.
We keep seeming to have a difficulty distinguishing between religious marriage and civil marriage.
I am inclined to suggest that either the civil word or the religious word needs to change. Perhaps there should be no marriage as a civil function at all, but only civil unions. This might simplify it, although now all legal documents would presumably read: are you in a civil union.
And your thoughts?
Report comment to moderator
As I have taken a hiatus from posting here til after the election, ’tis refreshing to see that the quantity & quality of shared ideas are still strong here on WMB. I am returning with a renewed and even more vigorous idea of what America “The Great” should be.
Chas: please accept my apology for not being the vice-presidential mate you chose me to be. There were more important areas in my world that dictated I spend my energies there instead on WMB. I won’t let you down again.
Oh….and you nailed your post (#1) right on. That is exactly what the liberal establishment believes, not matter how far CB and Musing spin it.
NJLawyer: It does my heart well to see that you have not lost your vibrant love for Lord Jesus and this great country we can call home. UUhh, one question though. How in the deep blue sea can New Jersey continue to elect Frank Lautenburg????? That geezer is older than the dinosaurs most evolutionists believed lived millions of years ago!!
I will be sharing my observations on the presidential campaign and the vile vitriol we’ve seen by the Drive-by media in my next post. For now, I just wanted to wish you all here on WMB well, and your families, as we enter the 2008 holiday season.
Report comment to moderator
KBells
OK, my non-inclusive list and not listed in particular order of priority:
In foreign affairs
1. win the “war” on terrorism
2. Preserve national sovereignty
3. Create a level playing field for trade
4. Protect Israel
(Please note, I agree with all three of these broad goals. Where I disagree with conservatives are the tactics and strategies used to get us there, which in my view have been a) overly militarized, b) overly unilateral c) shortsighted)
Domestically
1. Maintain lower taxes, particularly for business and the wealthy (the theory being trickle down, some problems with the theory though as it seems to not work all that well).
2. Deregulate to free entrapeneurs (this has not worked well on a whole range of issues from the environment to finances and is dressed up as giving consumers freedom of choice)
3. In theory cut the deficit (I have to say theory because under Republicans debt is out of control)
4. Outlaw abortion (mostly the Christian conservatives)
5. Outlaw gays (mostly the Christian conservatives)
6. Prevent sex that you think should not happen (mostly the Christian conservatives)
7. Outlaw stem cell research (mostly the Christian conservatives)
8. (for the Christian right) establish your interpretations of Biblical norms as US law (this includes outlawing certain methods of birth control (IUD, for example), the teaching of creationism in public schools, the use of the ten commandments as the basis for Constitutional interpretation, etc.)
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I believe there was a proposed law in some western state concerning a civil unions that most conservatives were on board with. The left objected to it because it would apply to non sexual unions such as an elderly person and a unrelated caretaker. Even Dobson was okay with it. The left killed if I recall.
Report comment to moderator
Oh Musing….LOL big guy.
Report comment to moderator
Off the topic of Chas’s very good thread starter:
Auto bailouts. The flood gates keep getting opener and opener.
Report comment to moderator
CB: As you and Musing raised issues with Chas’s list, so I must raise issues with your list.
First a minor quibble: You listed FOUR objectives under “foreign affairs”, then said, “I agree with all THREE of these broad goals.” I assume you meant all four?
Next, your domestic list.
1. Basically true, although I quibble with your wording. Saying that conservatives want low taxes “particularly for business and the wealthy” makes it sound like conservatives would have less problem with high taxes on the poor, and that taxes on the poor could be higher than on the rich. But of course conservatives want low taxes for everyone. I expect that this was a wording problem and you did not mean to imply it that way.
(I’ll post this and continue with the other points in my next post).
Report comment to moderator
CB.
5. It would be difficult to outlaw gays. Most of us would like to avoid laws that force us to affirm gays.
7. Thank you. I forgot that one, but lets be clear that is embryonic stem research.
8. Equal time and consideration for the Christian traditions that brought us this far.
If we are going to talk about the extreme views of the other side, I have heard Liberals, some on the blog, who consider all religious instruction of children to be child abuse. But at the moment that seems ot be the extreme view.
BTW these are my views. I’m sure there are as many on the right who will disagree with me as on the left.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y
Yes, I meant 4. I added Israel in my editing and forgot to correct the number I referred to.
On taxes, I did not mean to imply higher taxes in any bracket, that’s correct.
KBells
Yeah, 5 was overstated, but the number of times I’ve had conservative Christians say outright to me that I oughta get back in the closet tends to make me harsher in statements on this issue.
7. yes embryonic, I should have been clear about that, apologies for the broadness.
8. I’m happy to discuss and see where I have been overly broad on this one.
I’ve also seen the lib attack on religious instruction as child abuse. I disagree with them. Although I do think religious instruction to a child based on fear is not an optimal way to teach kids.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, how does Intelligent Design establish Christianity as a state religion? Many people, religious or not, Christian or not, do believe that evolution does not account for the universe. How does teaching Intelligent Design establish a state religion? It doesn’t. It’s a contrary view, that’s all. What you should be asking yourself on your side is why won’t evolutionists admit they don’t have all the answers?
I don’t live in a compartmentalized world. Only leftys do that (Clinton was really good at it, you will recall.) It was never the intent of the Founders and the Americans who fought the Revolution to eliminate religion in day to day living. It’s time for the lefty’s to grow up and stop forcing people to NOT exercise their beliefs. You don’t have that right. See the First Amendment. Having religion in the public square — it has always been there and the Supremes have never said it can’t be — is NORMAL, it’s part of life of billions of people, whether a Christian does it or a Buddhist, or a Muslim. Moreover, the majority of people — and they matter! — have no problem with it. Deal with the issue of control and why you leftys need to do it, and we’ve got something to talk about. It is not psychologically sound for leftys to be so “offended” because normal people say the word “God” or “Jesus” or “Allah” in public. And let’s be honest here. You guys don’t care if someone says “Allah” in public. You guys care if someone says “Jesus” in public. I’m waiting for change. Change on the issue of forcing people into one mold as the lefty’s want. Not big on freedom, any of you. Talk about that instead of playing these silly little nitpicking word games.
Marriage is marriage: between a man and a woman. There’s really no such thing as religious marriage and civil marriage. Note that the words “religious” and “civil” are modifiers. At the core, we are talking about the same NOUN — marriage, which is a unique relationship between a man and a woman.
The MSM itself showed Richardson saying $125K. Google your brains out if you need a reference. I’m sure of what I’m saying there.
You might also want to look at the Obama transition site: as it is NOW, it has removed the words “require” and “mandatory” with respect to civil service. Visit the Volokh for an interesting thread on that one. He won’t be pulling that one out of the hat either. And if he can’t get through one press conference without insulting a little old lady (Nancy Reagan), we’re going to be awash in apologies. Not off to a good start.
JUSTUS331: I was wondering about you!! Glad to have you back.
NJ is lefty, what can I say? The really odd part is that Lautenberg originally got his job because he said Millcent Fenwick was too old!!! And she was younger than he is now!!! But with lefty’s, you know they ignore what they don’t want to face. They don’t really want “change.” It’s another words to them. You can see that by the posts here. Nothing has changed.
Report comment to moderator
Chas: Excellent list. The noise that is being thrown up by Musing and Coyote Blue is just that – noise.
One thing that needs to be added is that the Democrats plan on re-structuring the voting process in order to make voting a third-world style ’sham’ exercise in intimidation and certain outcomes. You see it now in the widespread abuse and fraud which goes unreported by the conrolled media. But there are far more serious plans afoot to institutionalize intimidation and ensure leftwing ‘victories’ in the ‘electoral’ process. Obama has pledged to institute a trial process of eliminating secret ballots in union elections, in order to give intimidation and corruption free rein to bring in ‘desired’ pre-determined outcomes. When that experiment is wrung out to the satisfaction of the controllers, expect it to be instituted in civic ‘elections’.
Also, you touched on the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ by which the leftwing is planning on shutting down conservative voices in the marketplace. This is just one prong of a many-pronged effort to eliminate dissent. Expect this effort also to move into every forum, especially in the ‘new media’ (which is yet largely uncontrolled) which includes the internet. The controlled media will be the only approved outlet for a carefully screened, monolithic and Statist ‘view’ of events and issues (example; the contrived ‘threat’ of global warming used in order to further restrict personal and economic liberties, etc.)
The ‘hate speech’ tool you mentioned will be used to silence any non-approved religious expression regarding morality or what is spiritually good or bad (i.e. the State will define what a citizen may or may not believe and express). The Canadian model here is just first base; think along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China for the actual goal.
And as your list makes clear, it is to control the minds of the children, which is their number one target.
Your list then must be viewed as a short-term list; long term objectives of the leftwing are far more comprehensive and sweeping. They can be broadly viewed in terms of eliminating human liberty, constructing a totalitarian super-state (a mixture of George Orwell’s 1984 and Brave New World), and, in particular, eliminating true Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Drill
I know you really believe your post 24. Bless your heart.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Drill, now that the election is over, take a deep breath and give us another of your funny posts. (It can even be election related if you like–just as long as it’s funny.)
Chas, still waiting for that concession speech. Maybe the world won’t hear it, but those of us who voted, um, I mean rooted, for you should at least be able to see the transcript.
Lynn, I’m not sure that the thread with Anthony Bradley’s post got any nicer since your drop-in scepter alert…. I was pretty embarrassed to have to agree with Anlir at the end, because the Christians on that thread (mostly) shamed themselves.
Report comment to moderator
(continued)
2. I think Kbells had it right when she said “reducing government regulations to a manageable and reasonable level.”
Regarding your editorializing on whether deregulation works, I can’t say anything with much authority. When the financial sector collapsed, I did some reading of World Book Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and various articles on the Internet to improve my knowledge of economic and monetary issues and policy. I definitely improved my knowledge quite a bit-but I still know very little!
3. I think to most conservatives, the high deficit and ballooning debt ranks as one of the failures of Bush and the Republicans. Personally, I feel more strongly about balancing the budget than I do about cutting taxes. Now a lot of people will say we can do both. Why even Obama implied it.
4. Yes.
5 and 6. No. I don’t think conservatives are calling for the government to punish you or anyone else for what you do in your bedroom.
7. It may be true that conservatives want to ban embryonic stem cell research. But President Bush’s policy has been simply avoiding federal funding for that research (in other words neutrality).
8. I think this is overstated. Don’t take a few Dominionists and lump all Christian conservatives in with them. And no, the basis for constitutional interpretation should be the original meaning of the text, as it was generally understood at the time it was ratified.
Report comment to moderator
It would be nice to see a discussion about justifying ones idea of the role of government. One side says legislate this and that to promote gay marriage rights, the other side says legislate to preclude those rights. Neither side ever says anything about whether the government should have anything to do with that issue…or the host of other issues de jour. Notice how our government and corporations consist of cronies–”a wretched hive of scum and villainy.” They laugh at our little quibbles.
Report comment to moderator
One more person who thinks the drive-by media was lopsided for Obama – and this one posts some stats (Musing):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
When a news outlet outright admits it how can you liberals deny it?
Report comment to moderator
The list in #1 is a fine example of RWCCP (right-wing, conservative Christian paranoia). It reveals a diet heavy on talk-radio, The Washington Times, and worldnetdaily. It’s meant to distract from the real issues facing this country.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Hey Drill, now that the election is over, take a deep breath and give us another of your funny posts. (It can even be election related if you like–just as long as it’s funny.)
I thought #24 was pretty funny. It’s a great satire of wild-eyed paranoia … oh wait, he wasn’t trying for satire?
Report comment to moderator
Justus331, Where have you been? You are the only reason I lost. I was expecting you to offset the effect of Sarah and Joe. We could have swept the country.
Welcome back.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I expected disagreement, and I will consider them. I started printing everything till I noticed it was already 35 pages long and canceled it.
As for CB’s comments (#16), conservatives are disappointed that Bush didn’t do anything to cut the budget.
We do not want to outlaw homosexuals, we just oppose the attempts to make it a mainstream practice with marriage, etc. You will find Christians to be against violence against homosexuals.
As for “prevent sex that you think should not happen”. I expect everyone agrees here, I hope you do.
I don’t know anyone who agrees with your interpretation in #8. You have completely misinterpreted our policy. We haven’t attempted to establish Biblican norms, as such. We just resist liberal attempts to remove long standing traditions handed down from our fathers and which have worked well for generations. e.g. Ten commandments in the court house have been there for generations. Men have married women forever. Not even in Greek (Spartan) culture did men marry men.
We think parents should control what our children learn. We champion Jew’s right to teach the Torah. We resist Muslem teaching Jihad, but otherwise their teaching is their right.
I worked with several Jews during my career. I knew of no one who was offended by “Merry Christmas”. Only the ACLU is.
I have seen, and will post as they occur, examples of my 8b. “child abuse”.
I will revisit my list and mark your progress.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, #30, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me.
As I said above, We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, Matt
I’ll agree that #8 on my domestic list is overstated. On the other hand, I’ve heard many a liberal friend say that with conviction. I think that on this score Evangelicals have a perception problem — that is a good number of folk view conservative Evangelicals as wanting to impose Biblical norms. America as a “Christian Nation” fighting Islam imagery does not help ya’ll make the case that you don’t really want us all to live by Biblical norms — whatever that might mean (because I think if you unpack all Biblical norms, going from the OT through the NT, even the most fervent believer in inerrancy would find some things to interpret in light of modern thinking, such as slavery or polygamy or dietary laws or economic guidelines from the OT, for example)
On homosexuality, I do need to ask what you guys mean by just not in the mainstream. How does that phrase translate into jobs, for example?
Yeah,
You raise a fundamental question. Bravo. In a democratic society what is the proper role of the government? What is your take on the question?
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
You would have made one fine prsident. It was sad that you were vitimized and the election was stolen from you. Where is the ACLU now?
Report comment to moderator
I think that an oppressive totalitarian regime is better than total chaos. The reason: you can fight against the government (like in V for Vendetta), but when Rome burns, you can only stand back and watch the riots. Practically nothing you can do will stop the destruction in that case, unless you’re a superhero (or simply possess superpowers or “special abilities”), and I don’t think there are very many of those in the world.
So, which one will it be: Big Brother or America up in flames (and mass destruction and chaos)?
Report comment to moderator
Whoa Anlir! Did you drink too much coffee this morning? Sounds like you’ve got a bit more paranoia than you need yourself… Chas is certainly willing to be corrected, but the drive-by comments you make don’t give it a chance. And as far as I know, Chas has always been a gentleman on this blog. How bout a bit more substance and a little less rhetoric on your part? You just come off as a wild-eyed flaming liberal in that post, and I know you can do better.
What points exactly do you disagree with? How can we more correctly portray the Democrat or liberal position?
Report comment to moderator
You know why John McCain lost the election?
Because celebrities like Paris Hilton and Hayden Panettiere attacked him. No, wait, there must be another reason.
Report comment to moderator
Chas’s List
As a foreign socialist I don’t have a liberal agenda for America but I believe I have a pretty conception of what it is and should be.
1. Civil unions which guarantee the same legal rights as civil heterosexual unions would be fine. The distinction of religious and civil marriage seems to difficult for some hence call it a civil union and have the state recognize the union and its entitlements but allow the church/temple/mosque their own choice. Don’t ask don’t tell is a greater threat to national security than a policy of openness. When an official fears dismissal, he becomes open to “suggestions”. This same policy led to a shortage of Arabic translators.
Although some would still like the ERA, current practice has basically led to a reading in of the ERA. As for women in combat I’m not sure anyone has even thought of the issue other than women who wish to be in combat (best way to be promoted)
3. Energy independence
A reasonable policy idea which needs some innovative thinking. A cap and trade emissions policy is a capitalist response to environmentalist demand either taxes or prohibition. Essentially, a market is created and interested parties participate in order to obtain the necessary permits. Its supply management. Currently, the Ontario government operates a milk marketing board which manages the buying and selling of milk production quotas. When the milk supply is too low, it issues new quotas but in the interim farmers purchase the right to produce. By limiting the production, milk prices rise to a level necessary for farmers to make a reasonable living. This system has worked rather well and is more efficient than the EU and American method of subsidization, which allows farmers to stay in or enter an unprofitable occupation through grants, relief checks (welfare) etc. Employing the same system to control the amount of pollution entering the atmosphere may work just as effectively and moreover will reward “green” corporations who can sell their emissions rights.
4. America will never have socialized health care. The insurance companies are too entrenched in the system. However, the workplace based system makes American manufactures uncompetitive in comparison to other developed nations.
5a. Religion can’t be confined to church property anymore than politics can be confined to the parliament or health care can be confined to a hospital.
5b. Legislation against “hate speech”. Personally I think the left needs to relax on this and current practice in Canada suggests that the legal system is starting to recognize that differences of opinion are not necessarily hate. However, if a direct link can be made between a specific instance of hate speech and a specific crime, I would support charges. Enacting thought police is counterproductive.
6a. School children will not be instructed to new sexual mores. They should however be instructed in human reproduction, anatomy, fertilization, pregnancy and prevention, disease and prevention etc. This is not a course in sexual mores but sexual health.
6b. Parental instruction contrary to accepted views is “child abuse”. Huh?? At first glance, I would say no one advocates charging parents with child abuse on the basis of their instruction but I just had a boy from Jehovah’s Witness knock on my door; at the most he 12 and at least ten feet away was a twenty something male watching his performance — ie his mentor. He was being “groomed”. After I politely declined, I wondered if this qualifies as child abuse or should we allow parental rights to trump concern for child welfare in cult like circumstances.
7. Make U.S. laws adhere to U.N. referendums. Do you mean the US should obey international treaties it has signed? In that case, of course, one has no credibility if one does not follow one’s word. If you mean UN resolutions passed without US consent, the question becomes trickier. Most Americans would say no especially since these are unenforceable. However, some international institutions are necessary if for no other reason than stability. Increased international cooperation should be a US goal since it represents a better and more efficient method of securing an oil supply.
8a. A war on terror is a dumb idea. You can’t defeat a concept or tactic. If its a war, follow international law. If its not a law, its a criminal matter, in which case, US standards are applicable. Stripping human rights in the name of safety leads to a lack of freedom.
14. Palin hurts herself when she talks. If SNL can take her very words, have Tina Fey recite them and produce laughter from a live audience, perhaps the mass media is not the problem but merely the messenger.
15 By placing current no-bid contracts on the open market, it will possible to decrease spending with reducing purchases for the armed services. Secondly providing more services in-house instead of contracting them out should also save money.
Report comment to moderator
You have to laugh. Lefties really think that America should adhere to International Laws that were specifically created by anti Americans worldwide for the express purpose of punishing the USA for its greatness, its worldwide leadership and unmatched charity. It’s getting harder to tell them from Palestinian Islamofascist terrorissts every day.
Report comment to moderator
Chas’ list, which is taken directly from the democratic party leadership, shows how little lefties here, who disagree with it, actually know what their party is all about.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
Moreover, the only “evangelical agenda” I know about is to be prepared for Christ’s return.
This is a personal agenda not a gov’t agenda, right???
Report comment to moderator
Coyote #16- Your point #7 is only half correct. I believe that certain kinds of stem cell research are fine: adult stem cells and placenta stem cells show as much, if not more promise of being viable, but embryonic stem cells require the killing of an innocent life, so it should be outlawed. As for the argument some give about the leftover embryos from fertilization clinics that will be destroyed anyway, I believe that is covered in GW Bush’s 2001 law that said the scientists could use existing strains (or at least, my interpretation of the 2001 law would allow for these embryos to be used). I would also add that creation of these embryos stop immediately to prevent anymore “unneeded” embryos.
Report comment to moderator
#37 MIM,
You are very naive, if Christian, in your thoughts about Anlir being able to change his ways. He is who he is and it shows. It would be like you tryiong to make him gay or something
Report comment to moderator
Chas: The problem with trying to create a “liberal manifesto” is that liberals don’t all march in lockstep. Most of the positions you articulated are true of some of us; but most of them are NOT true of all of us.
Here is my personal response to the list, speaking for myself and not for liberals as a whole:
1a. Homosexual marriage nationwide.
Indifferent. I would like to see a civil union available for homosexuals. While I would not oppose calling it marriage, I also don’t see how it’s necessary to.
But I do believe same-sex couples should have some legal mechanism to formalize a committed relationshhip and have access to the legal rights of being so partnered.
1b. Remove “don’t-ask-don’t tell” in military.
Ironic that you consider removing this a key liberal goal, seeing as it was Clinton who instituted it.
I don’t necessarily advocate this. I think it’s a shame that homosexuals still need to be closeted anywhere, but I’m not sure the military is ready for openly gay service members.
1c. Equal Rights Amendment.
1d. Women in combat units
I don’t see why women who are physically and mentally capable of going into combat should be forbidden to. Equal Rights Amendment? I haven’t heard that phrase since the ’70s.
2. Abortion on demand nationwide (Freedom of Choice), government financing for indigent.
Early-term, yes. Late term, only when medically necessary (and I mean, a serious test of necessity.)
BUT, I would add to this, comprehensive sex education (including for adults if they need it) and available contraception to hopefully avoid unwanted pregnancies from taking place at all.
3. Energy independence
3a. Prohibitions against drilling for oil offshore, and in Alaska.
3b. Nuclear plants prohibited.
3c. Severe cap-and-trade restrictions on coal plants and oil refineries.
3d. Mandates on usage of ethanol, electrical appliances, automobile mileage, etc.
I would not prohibit offshore drilling, but I would insist it be done safely. As for Alaska, I don’t fully understand why conservatives are obsessed with ANWR. It’s like they can’t bear to see a stretch of unspoiled wilderness without feeling a visceral need to exploit it.
No prohibition of nuclear power, but high standards for safety. This is bad?
I don’t know about mandates, but incentives to move toward higher levels of energy efficiency certainly make sense.
4. Socialized medicine.
Nope. Nobody has really ever proposed “socialized” medicine, despite the hysteria about it on the right. The various universal health care proposals have always combined private insurance with government programs to fill in the gaps.
5a. Religion confined to church property. (Don’t quibble on this, it’s the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and NPR position.)
Nobody (even the groups you name) argues that religion must be “confined to church property.” As long as there’s no government money being spent on it, most liberals are for freedom of speech and religion. Many liberals are religious, though I know it’s popular here to pretend that liberal=godless atheist.
5b. Legislation against “hate speech”.
5c. “Fairness doctrine”
I don’t favor hate speech legislation … I think it’s good to know who the haters are. I’m undecided about the Fairness Doctrine. We had it before and, despite the hue and cry about it stamping out right wing radio, it didn’t seem to really stifle anyone.
6a. School children will be instructed to new sexual mores.
Bull. Most liberals believe that teenagers should understand sex, reproduction and contraception, and that their parents should be the source of moral instruction. Ideally their parents should also be the source of factual instruction on sex, reproduction and contraception as well, but many parents fall down on the job.
Liberals believe that if Susie’s parents tell her to just say no until she’s married, and she disobeys that instruction without knowing how to protect herself, she is bound for trouble.
6b. Parental instruction contrary to accepted views is “child abuse”.
Nope. I don’t even know specifically what you mean by this. Whose “accepted views?” What instruction runs contrary to it?
7. Make U.S. laws adhere to U.N. referendums.
Huh? Who’s even talking about this?
8a. War on Terror conducted as criminal issues.
No.
Back in 1993, Clinton prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing as criminals, and sent them to prison. Later on, he tried to argue for taking out Osama bin Laden, but it seems no one took him seriously.
Many, probably most, liberals believe that invading Iraq was a blunder that took our strength away from Afghanistan, where it was more immediately needed. This is a debate over how to wage war on terror, not whether to.
8b. Civil rights for all terrorist captives.
Yep. We lose big if we let fear and anger draw us away from our own principles of justice.
9.a Amnesty and citizenship paths for all illegal aliens.
9.b Remove restrictions on border crossings.
Nope and nope. I’d agree on a citizenship path for some, if they’re contributing to American society and are well established here, maybe. But we do not have the resources to take everyone who wants to come here and can’t be bothered to do it legally.
10. Withdraw military support from Israel.
Where does that come from? Nobody is advocating that.
11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation.
Yes. Since when is that a bad thing, where it can be done?
12. Restrictions on firearm ownership.
Yes. Criminals and terrorists should not be allowed to own firearms. This is a bad position?
13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
I don’t think there’s any threshold level that you could say is part of a “liberal manifesto.” In general, the idea that it’s better to pay for government programs through revenue rather than debt is probably a common belief.
13b. Hidden taxes through corporate taxation.
1. How is that hidden?
2. Why shouldn’t corporations pay taxes?
14 Destroy Sarah Palin (and probably Bobby Jindal), since no other viable Republican is out there.
Ha. If Sarah Palin is the most viable candidate you’ve got, the party doesn’t need our help to be destroyed.
15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
False. Some liberals might favor this, but I don’t and liberals as a group do not. We may prefer modest reductions or better use of the funding awarded, but we’re well aware of the need for defense.
16 Reparations for slavery. However I suspect this is too hot to handle, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up.
Also false. Not many people, liberal or otherwise, support this. The closest we come is the idea that people who are economically disadvantaged — who often are descendants of slaves whose families have never been able to rise much above poverty — should get some financial help to get an education and have a better chance than their forebears to rise above.
Report comment to moderator
Chas’ list, which is taken directly from the democratic party leadership, shows how little lefties here, who disagree with it, actually know what their party is all about.
OR it might show the diversity and tolerance on the left.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Coyoteblue; thanks for your response.
You ask, “In a democratic society what is the proper role of the government?” How about just, “What is the proper role of government?” Any arbitrary answer fails, unless one believes there’s no right or wrong answer to the question, in which case, why all these arguments? The Word of God isn’t arbitrary, so the limits and roles of government should be gleaned from there.
Report comment to moderator
Peter
Yes, I clarified that in subsequent posts.
Llama
Please list all international laws designed to confine the United States. It would be helpful if you keep in mind that international law in informed by State practice. Please also discuss the US history of negotiation on the specific international law you believe was designed to confine the USG.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
Ok, but in the Bible the examples of government are a) tribal leadership (see Judges) b) Kings (see Samuel, Kings, Chronicles *I and II for all of the above*, various prophets) and c) Roman Emporers (see the New Testament). Proverbs and Ecclesiastes do speak to how a wise King would govern. So I’d be interested in what Scriptural bases you are using on limits of government.
Report comment to moderator
#12 Musing,
Look a little harder. there are many videos of Obama and his handlers saying everyone under $250,000 would get a tax cut and those over would see their taxes rise.
It was much later, the last few s=days of the campaign that Obama and his aids said no, those that do not pay taxes won’t get a tax cut and that only those making less than $150,000 a year and pay taxes will get a tax cut and that those over $250,000 would have their taxes go up to the rates passes while Bush senior was president. (remember this is what cost him the election – read my lips no new taxes). Obama never ever clarified what would happen to those between %150,000 adn $250,000. You are kind of making this up as you go along like Obama did.
What we know now is that all of Obama’s pronouncements on this issue were lies to begin with since he had no intention of cutting taxes or tax rates. He was finally forced to admit that he going to send out checks, exactly like the rob the rich to give to the poor stimulus checks, which at best can be called unearned income tax credits like the earned income tax credits that exist for the poor as created by Bush Junior in his tax cutes forr the poor along with his 10% tax rate that never existed before for the poor who had to pay a minimum of 15% before.
It is obvious that the most stupid thing that Bush ever did was to create an new class of poor Americans, with his tax cuts that were mainly for the poor. Those that pay no income taxes now total nearly 50% of total population. They pay no taxes, are addicted to government welfare, (after Clinton weaned them off of it) and believe that Democrat socialists created this giveaway for them when it was President Bush that did it.
Bush created a permanent class of Minnie the Moochers that will vote for the Marxists on the left who long ago left Socialism far behind – for Republicans who are are commonly lead by socialists like Bush and McCain who consider themselves compassionate conservatives when it comes to the poor.
Bush went out of his way to make sure the left could no longer call the right insensitive to the plight of the poor by going socialist with his tax cuts for the poor while raiseing the total tax burden for the rich, and look what it got him. They call him Hitler, The most evil man alive and responsible for all of the ill in the world. The poor actually think his goodness toward them was done by Pelosi, Reid and Obama who did nothing at all for them in 30 years ecxcept keep them as poor subserviant slaves.
It is time for a change of leadership on the right all right adn this time it won’t be a socialist.
Report comment to moderator
An interesting video on the McCain party during election night. Suspending reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kIQ-M2yCI8
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue at 49: Did you just ask for further explanation without jumping to conclusions and launching into a rant? Sorry, but you may have broken a few forum rules! My Saturday is just starting to roll, so I’ll try to chime in with a response later on.
Report comment to moderator
One could easily make a “Conservative Manifesto” list that is just as reactionary and over-the-top.
When you allow the RWCCP (right-wing conservative Christian paranoia) to set the terms of the debate, you’re giving in to the “Karl Rove” brand of politics – the politics of division and denigration.
We just had an election where the American people rejected the “Karl Rove” brand of politics. The conservatives are furious about that, and they’re still attempting to run things on their agenda. A fair number of Worldmag folks are still clinging to their “Karl Rove” playbook.
They want to, for example, continue to demonize gays. So they continue using incendiary language about gays and try to scare people into thinking gays are evil. Their goal is to try and make gays into social and legal outcasts in America.
But, as Barack Obama says, we can do better than that in America. As he said in his election night speech, (gay or straight) we are all Americans. And if we are, then we should treat each other justly and fairly.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
I wonder if you’ve heard of Andover Newton Theology School in MA. I just wrote an email Mark Burrows a top theologian responding to a blog post of his about New England Election sermons. See my website for the links to his original post. Anyway my email is as follows:
Hi Mark,
[...]
I saw your post on election sermon (linked to by the Acton Institute). I must say I disagree with a core premise of your post. You wrote:
“In their day – and this stretched from the early colonial period through the later 19th century in Massachusetts – such sermons depended on assumptions that no longer make much sense to us. Ministers could still presume that the Scriptures were the authoritative text governing how the ‘public’ discerned its way.”
Well yes, that describes *some* of the election sermons in the history of Mass. to which you refer, but by no means all (”most” is debatable). I wonder if you are aware of the history of heterodoxy/unitarianism in your state during this time period and how many of the most notable election sermons, especially those that argued for the American Revolution and republicanism, were given by theological unitarians and were premised on the idea that natural reason was at least on par with if not superior to scripture.
It’s true that the population back then was almost all “Christian” in some formal or nominal sense; but as is the case today, it’s not at all clear that the majority of folks who identified as “Christians” considered themselves orthodox, trinitarian or “regenerate” as opposed to Christian in some kind of nominal sense. And many of those unitarian preachers (Mayhew, Chauncy, Gay, Howard, West from the early era and Sparks, Channing, and more names that I can list from the 19th Century onward) more or less defined being a “Christian” with mere morality. America’s Founders like J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison and others likewise believed in this understanding of Christianity that equated it with mere morality. And this was, I believe, key to making America much more religiously diverse as time progressed. As long as they are good people, they are “Christians” and should have no problem assimilating in America, as it were.
What say you?
Report comment to moderator
OFF TOPIC alert
Interesting reading. Hopefully I’ll have time for it later. Got about halfway through and just have to move on with my day. BUT…
Now that the kids are on the cusp of 13 and 14 and the 14 y.o. is in H.S. and tends to monopolize our one computer for school we are needing to add some sort of safety software. What are your recommendations? One friend likes Net Nanny. Any thoughts yeah or nay or reasons to try something else?
I’ll check back later in the day. Sorry to get this post on so late. I may try again in the next WV edition if I can get on before the comment level has exceeded 20.
Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
AKMOM
Put the computer in a common room where people frequently walk through etc. Use your own eyes. Its a parenting issue not a software.
Report comment to moderator
HRW is right.
Kids today are smarter than their parents when it comes to computers and they can get around most anything.
Put the computer in a public area of your home and keep on parenting.
Report comment to moderator
I notice Anlir is still being allowed to use her acronyms belittling conservative Christians. No wonder so many don’t post here anymore.
Report comment to moderator
AKMOM: Since you posed your question (post 55) on a Christian-themed blog, I’m guessing you’re asking for advice from Christians. My advice to you would be to ignore the non-advise of the leftists and wait for a believer to offer some godly advice. It’ll come along eventually. And good luck!
Report comment to moderator
AKMom, You can’t get off subject on WV.
I see where those in South Carolina can get religious license plates. They can get a plate that says “I Believe”.
Actually, I don’t think anything ought to be on licenst plates except essential data and, maybe, a state motto like “Palmetto State” or “First in Flight”. However, I could, if I wished, get a NC plate advertising Purdue, USC, or Lions. I have none of those.
The point is, American’s United for Separation of Church and State had a lawsuit opposing it.
If they, for financial reasons, want to place comments on plates, if they can sell enough, what business is it of AUFSCS? They can’t leave it alone, can they?
Report comment to moderator
Post 52 That’s a rant? I could show you a real rant.
Believe me citing scripture to you and what is actually in the Bible regarding historical examples of governments is pretty far from a rant. If you really need a ruling, please complain to Lynn and all the other powers that be about it.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
Please stop referring to Anlir as her. It’s beneath you to be that petty. And, you know, take a look at the Samaritan and then ask yourself again what kind of advice is and is not worthy.
Report comment to moderator
CHAS wrote; “A professor once told me, ‘Unless you can state a man’s position so that he will agree, “Yes, that’s what I believe,” you haven’t correctly understood his position.’”
CHAS, I respectfully disagree with that professor. There are far too many people who have hidden agendas. They will say, ‘No, that’s not what I believe,’ when in fact and in practice, that is exactly what they believe and seek.
For instance, Barack Obama and Joseph Biden have claimed that they do not approve of or seek homosexual marriage. But all their policies and practices and appointments point only in that direction and they are completely unwilling to lift a finger to actually oppose homosexual marriage in any way.
You cannot always trust what some people say they believe and support or not, especially during a campaign.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: I notice Anlir is still being allowed to use her acronyms belittling conservative Christians. No wonder so many don’t post here anymore.
With all due respect, I think my own GMC — which stands for “good moral Christians” and I always use it ironically when the Christians are being neither good nor moral — is far more belittling than Anlir’s, even the RWCCP he used above.
Why are you not whining about me? Don’t you love me anymore?
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue: You just completely missed Yeah’s point in #52. I misread it too the first time, but after closer inspection I figured it out. Notice the phrase “without (emphasis added) jumping to conclusions.”
Report comment to moderator
I would like to bounce a first draft of an article off of some of you to see what you think:
(please skip if not interested)
____________
It Takes Two Wings to Fly
Five months after the Declaration of Independence was signed, there was a poor harvest in the land and the struggle and fears of war loomed large. Morale in America was low. This called for an act of congress! They set aside December 11, 1776 and decreed that the states should organize on that day a Day of Fasting and Repentance!
What business did congress have calling the American people to repent? Frankly, it came rather naturally to them. They treasured the Judeo-Christian legacy that ran deep in this country long before we crafted a Constitution. So, when political and military power seemed utterly vulnerable, they knew where America needed to turn–to God. And they knew how–with repentance!
In 1776, General George Washington gave orders to his army that each day begin with formal prayer to be led by the officers of each unit. He also decreed that all profanity be banned (this reminds me of the greatest basketball coach ever, John Wooden, 200 years later, who also did not allow profanity in his presence, regardless of how good the player was).
These examples of faith animating public leaders were cited in Michael Novak’s “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense in the American Founding.” (pgs 18 & 19). Novak showed that our Founders knew that the early American eagle rises and soars on two wings: NOT so much left or right wings but faith and reason working together! That’s how our Founders saw it, even though they were a mixed bag religiously at the personal level. Our greatest legacy as a nation is found in our ability to see these two wings working together nicely. This affirms the need for faith to be ever active and freely vocal in America’s public square.
The value our Founders placed in reason is apparent in the documents they crafted. The value they invested in faith is seen at a deeper level in these words by John Dickinson, a member and chairman of the committee for the Declaration of Independence in 1976;
“Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of pre-existing rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.”
John Adams, our nation’s first Vice President and second President agreed:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 – from an address to the military).
Elections com and go (thankfully), but faith and reason must work together freely and regularly for this nation to fly.
______________
Report comment to moderator
#59 As you gave no advice are you not worthy either? or do you have no godly thoughts? Your being extremely petty these days anything happen this week to annoy you?
#58 Is being called a Christian Conservative Republican belittling? Somehow I think not hence the acronym CCR should not bother you. Personally I don’t like the term ‘liberal’ some people here seem obsessed with calling me. I either ignore them or correct them – I’m anarcho-socialist in the George Orwell tradition. If you are not a CCR then correct or ignore but it seems rather childish to complain.
Now Scott’s GMC is dripping with sarcasm and is rather amusing in that it also refers to General Motors. IF you have legitimate complaint I’d suggest its with Scott not Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue,
Sorry it took so long to respond to your question about Biblical economics, having recently added posts 68 and 69 to the thread for your consideration.
Report comment to moderator
CCR, GMC
If you are a first time visitor to this site, if you missed the first use of term, if you somehow or other missed the meaning of a term used solely on WMB, you won’t get the acronym.
I have trouble remembering these acronyms. Am I the only one?
Report comment to moderator
YEAH (19): Auto bailouts. The flood gates keep getting opener and opener.
FRANK: Watch Peter Schiff: Let the ‘Big’ Three Fail (9-min. video).
Report comment to moderator
If CCR stands for Christian Conservative Republican, that perfectly describes me. Christin first, Conservative next and Republican when they act as Republicans should.
Joel Mark, the comment was made WRT millenial views. Too many times people ascribe various positions to people, then shoot them down, affecting no one positively.
The same things happen in politics. We have to assume that a person is being straightforward in describing his position. If not, communication is impossible.
I concede that this occurs often.
Report comment to moderator
A belated, but heartfelt, Happy Birthday to Sawgunner & Donna J.
Report comment to moderator
The various charges that are being made, such as the charge that Sarah Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent, are ludicrous. Look, imagine that Biden’s gaffes occurred in private, and some unnamed aides later came out saying that Biden didn’t know who was President in 1929, that he thought they had TVs then, that he thought J-O-B-S was three letters, that he was confused as to whether he or Obama was at the head of the ticket, and that he didn’t know that people in wheelchairs couldn’t walk, it would rightly be dismissed as ridiculous.
Notice that those making the charges are cowardly hiding their identities, while Palin’s defenders are fully willing to do so on record.
Following is the explanation from someone in the know:
Steve Biegun speaks out
He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.
On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what’s the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.
In general, according to Beigun, Palin had a steep learning curve on foreign issues, about what you would expect from a governor. But she has “great instincts and great core values,” and is “an instinctive internationalist.” The stories against her are being “fed by an unnamed source who is allowed by the press to make ad hominem attacks on background.” Biegun, who spent dozens and dozens of hours briefing Palin on these issues, is happy to defend her, on the record, under his own name.
Report comment to moderator
As Chas correctly understands, the acronym “CCR” is not in any way a derogatory term. As the original author of it, I used it to save on typing the words out. Nevertheless, a number of folks seemed to take umbrage at it, so I’ve dropped it.
But my goodness, have we reached the point of “PC” (political correctness) that even acronyms are considered offensive?
Report comment to moderator
HRW: I have no problem being referred to as a Conservative Christian Republican, but when a couple weeks ago I tried putting the shoe on the other foot (referring to someone as a Liberal Homosexual Atheist) I was told by a moderator of this blog that it was inappropriate. I just find it a little ironic, that’s all, but not offensive (not to me, at least).
Report comment to moderator
#63 Joel Mark
There are far too many people who have hidden agendas.
This message has a HIDDEN AGENDA
It appears right below this paragraph. It is written in invisible pixels. Stare very intently at your monitor for a while and it will gradually become visible on your screen. Do not move until it appears.
Report comment to moderator
Matt. Y, that is an example of what I was discussing in #71. It’s both ludicrous and fruitless to try to convince us that Sarah is a dunce. Likewise, calling George Bush an idiot speaks more about the person making the charge, than Bush.
It doesn’t help to call a person who believes in creation a Neanderthal. That person may have a doctorate. Though you may believe his is wrong, you have to concede that he is intelligent. Likewise, calling a person who believes in abortion a “baby killer” doesn’t help your argument. He may be, in your thinking, but the epithet is counter productive.
I’ve read Anlir’s bio. He is not a “she”, He is usually wrong about the Volunteers, but doesn’t affect his character. Wellllll, maybe it does. TJ is a misguided Bulldog fan. We have all sorts here.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I reject Anlir’s #30, “paranoia” part. I do not read worldnetdaily, but he left out American Spectator and Human Events.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, thanks for the reply. I agree completely.
This “sort” is a Buckeye fan.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (70): I agree wholeheartedly.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Chas, I will admit it’s not a good time to be a Tennessee Vol right now. Our season has been a complete disaster. The loss to Wyoming is further shame. We will have a new coach and hopefully a new direction next year. Steve Spurrier on the other hand seems to be quietly turning South Carolina’s season into a fine one. They should make a bowl game.
Report comment to moderator
I have enjoyed this thread. The first thing that the non-CCRs need to realize is that Chas expressed exactly what most of us believe about your positions. I couldn’t have written a better list.
So, if we’re wrong, then you too have to do a better job of explanation.
I do not know a single CCR (although I’m sure there are a few somewhere) who want to implement a government run to the letter of the Bible. We all know this is impossible until Christ returns. (Well, barring a few Dominionists, which I’ve heard of, but never met.)
As Chas said, we simply want the traditional things that have been to stay acceptable.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Pick another name for what you want. (I really am not going to fight all that much over civil unions.)
Religion has always been a part of the public square. I am not going to hide my religion, and neither should a politician or a judge or anyone else. It is part of one’s moral world. Of course, it is going to inform the way one interprets the world, and it should.
Christmas is not a dirty word. Most people celebrate it. Those who don’t can still take the greeting with good intentions.
Embryonic cell research has done NOTHING. So, let’s let it go and concentrate on what has. You’ll assuage at least half the nation’s consciences, and you won’t hurt the cause of medicine in the least.
Parents do have the right to rear their children. I don’t believe as the Jehovah Witnesses do, but I think they have every right to rear their children accordingly. Be careful! If it is child abuse to rear a child up in a religion, then — if we believers get in control — than we could make it child abuse to rear up a child to believe homosexuality is not okay. Would that be any more fair?
I honestly don’t care what anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom with a consenting adult, so long as no one gets hurt. But, I DO have the right to SAY I don’t approve of it. And, I DO have the right not to have it shoved down my throat. I don’t have to ACCEPT it as normal and fine. I DO have to tolerate it, and I’m fine with doing so, so long as I’m not demonized for not accepting it.
I don’t think my children should be forced to accept it. See above. I don’t think it is the place of the school to teach my children that homosexuality is just another form of family.
When my kids are older (in high school) feel free (should I ever allow them to attend public school) to give them the FACTS about homosexuality and other forms of sexuality. I don’t have a problem with my kids being informed on their health, on how their reproductive systems work, on how birth control works, or how some people behave. But, leave the interpretation of that to me and their father. (And, of course, to them as they get older.)
Do not make my kindergartner sign any pledge cards to uphold the rights of LGBTs.
I would never curtail the rights of a homosexual to work. And, I would like the same courtesy. I do think I have the right to ask that teachers not prominently discuss their sexuality in the classroom. If asked, tell the truth. “This is my partner, Steve.” Otherwise, nothing else. I pretty much expect the same from heterosexual teachers. I don’t think a teacher’s sexuality is the topic for discussion.
I’m pretty sure that I had at least one homosexual teacher, and I certainly was an aid for one. But, neither discussed it with the kids, or with me, for that matter. Thank heavens!
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! “than we could make it child abuse to rear up a child to believe homosexuality is not okay” should say, “to believe homosexuality is okay.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Re 66 I’m glad that my thoughts would for the impetus for an article that you would write. One major thing I’d note is it reads like a book review of Michael Novak’s “On Two Wings” but that book is probably a few years to old for a current book review.
Report comment to moderator
Is there any reason not to divide ourselves into two countries?
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue at 61. No, you certainly did not rant. I meant to applaud you for that. (See Matt Y’s noble defense of me at 65. Thanks, Matt Y.).
Briefly, random thoughts on the role of govt delimited by Scripture:
- Any law given in scripture which has not subsequently been divinely abrogated still stands. Of course, there is question about which laws pertain to the civil realm and which to the ecclesiastical. The point is, though, that Scripture, not men, is the authority on the proper reach of law.
- Government cannot, merely because it is the government, violate any part of God’s moral law. Unauthorized taxation is theft, a violation of the 8th commandment; furthermore, government should not tax citizens at unequal rates (possible minor exceptions here, but our graduated tax rates are unjust of their face).
Shoot…out of time for now…more tonight maybe….
-
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y, We have a guy in our Lions Club who played for Ohio State and is a big Buckeye fan. Nice guy. I got a Masters from Purdue. I love Boilermakers. I like Purdue too, it’s square, just like me.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
You are free to believe whatever you want about gays or anything else. Just don’t use the law to impose your religious beliefs on me or anyone else. As Barack Obama says, we’re all Americans, Christian or not, gay or straight, black or white. We should all be treated equally under the law, and with the same dignity and respect that we want others to give to us. If straight people can openly celebrate their relationships, gay people should have the same right. Demanding that gay people stay silent or go back in the closet is a non-negotiable item.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I love old books.
Report comment to moderator
Football Break: How about those Iowa Hawkeyes? Come from behind 24-23 to beat previously unbeaten Penn State. I wish Papa Joe could get the national title, but I like the Iowa team and am glad they got to be spoilers. Papa Joe still has an outside chance, if only ’Bama and a few others lose a game between now and December.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 17,
references please.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 24,
and your references for this comment:
“One thing that needs to be added is that the Democrats plan on re-structuring the voting process in order to make voting a third-world style ’sham’ exercise in intimidation and certain outcomes.”
Without references to substantiate what you are arging this is just hot air blowing in off the desert.
Report comment to moderator
llamam post 41,
and the reference showing that Chas’ list comes directly form Democratic party leadership?
Yup – sure.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: You give us CCRs a bad name. Although I consider myself CCLR (Christian Conservative Libertarian-Republican), I do not mind Anlir’s use of CCR. And PLEASE stop insulting him with female pronouns and “dear”. You do yourself no favors by continuing.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Please point out where I said anything like what you said in #88.
I said that teachers shouldn’t be shoving their sexuality in the face of their students. I said this should apply to both homosexual and heterosexual teachers. I said that a teacher should introduce his partner if asked. Where did I say you had to go hide in a closet?
On the other hand, some homosexuals seem to think an “in your face” demonstration of their sexuality is appropriate, and that I must ACCEPT them and their lifestyle. This is not fair. I don’t even like heterosexuals to hang all over each other in public. It is inappropriate.
If you want to display a photo of your partner on your desk…okay. If you want to smooch all over your partner in public…not okay.
And, again, we talk as if the homosexual population is largely just nice people who have long-term committed relationships. I think most Christians, while not approving of the sin, can tolerate these people just fine.
But, honestly, Anlir, there is a HUGE part of the population that is very raunchy, risque, and promiscuous. I know you’re going to point to the many heterosexuals that also behave this way, but — proportionally — it is more common in the (dare I say it) MALE population of homosexuals. (Females generally seem to show more restraint.)
I think that if the portion of modest, committed homosexuals condemned the behavior of the others, you might see a bit of softening.
Still, point is, I didn’t say what you reinterpreted me to have said. I find that really annoying.
Report comment to moderator
#92
““One thing that needs to be added is that the Democrats plan on re-structuring the voting process in order to make voting a third-world style ’sham’ exercise in intimidation and certain outcomes.
Without references to substantiate what you are arging this is just hot air blowing in off the desert.”
ACORN
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
I repeated your Dawg comment to TJ (who is cooking dinner) and he said to tell you that the Bulldogs are 2 and 0 against Anlir’s pick and yours!
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I think we should treat everyone equally in society. If we allow straight people to smooch in public, then gay people should have the same right. I hate to break this to you, but we live in a free nation, where every American has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your demand for gay people to “stifle” is counter to the principle of liberty.
You don’t like gay “raunchiness”, but you excuse straight “raunchiness”? Ever been to Mardi Gras? Ever go to a straight club or bar?
Report comment to moderator
we simply want the traditional things that have been to stay acceptable. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
The thing about conservatism is how far do you go back to conserve the past. Even Edmund Burke realized change was inevitable but he favored gradual change as opposed to revolution. Marriage has gradually changed from an exercise in familial and tribal bonds to the modern conception of freely consenting romantic relationships in the past 100 – 200 years. Modern conservatives wish to retain the latest concept of marriage not realizing almost all institutions change to suit their new surroundings.
Report comment to moderator
91. I’m looking. It was a while back, at least two years. There was a thread on her about it.
Report comment to moderator
HRW writes: “NJL Moreover, the only “evangelical agenda” I know about is to be prepared for Christ’s return.
This is a personal agenda not a gov’t agenda, right???”
I think that was the point, dear.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe as the Jehovah Witnesses do, but I think they have every right to rear their children accordingly. Be careful! If it is child abuse to rear a child up in a religion, than we could make it child abuse to rear up a child to believe homosexuality is [not] okay.
Essentially I agree with you but I still would like an answer to where one draws the line between rearing children according to one’s faith, morals, or culture and abuse due to cult-like brainwashing techniques. Is “Jesus Camp” or sending your children door to door a matter of rearing children or is it abuse. Secondly, your equivocation somewhat fails. A religious couple does not rear their children to think their religion is okay rather they rear their children that their religion is the correct religion. The consistent equivalent would have a homosexual couples not only rear their children to think homosexuality is okay but rather its the only way.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: If asked, tell the truth. “This is my partner, Steve.”
You said that was just between us!!
Report comment to moderator
And no, no Christian here excuses heterosexual raunchiness. That anyone can even suggest that indicates that said individual hasn’t been reading the posts by Christians with too much thought.
I agree with Drill’s #24, but do hope we’ll get a new Aerostar sory soon. I loved that one.
Report comment to moderator
TRS;
I rather like your responses but I think there’s a couple of things that need to be considered.
You can walk down any street, pretty much anywhere (other than in radical theocracies) hand in hand with your spouse, which no one would consider a blatant display of affection, without any worry of having slurs spoken to or yelled at you, or worse. I wish I could, but I cannot. And it’s interesting that lesbians seem to get a complete pass on this. Perhaps it is because two straight women can walk arm in arm without raising an eyebrow, men cannot.
You can accompany your spouse to work events without any worry that it might be a career limiting move for either of you to do so. If you go to a work function, do you and others dance with your spouses? Would it be considered inappropriate for me to do the same with mine while in your company?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think it is the place of the school to teach my children that homosexuality is just another form of family. When my kids are older (in high school) feel free (should I ever allow them to attend public school) to give them the FACTS about homosexuality and other forms of sexuality. I don’t have a problem with my kids being informed on their health, on how their reproductive systems work, on how birth control works, or how some people behave. But, leave the interpretation of that to me and their father.
The above is a good summary of the health curriculum, except these topics are covered in middle school (grade 6-8). The difficulty often arises over what is fact and opinion yet even that can be discussed in a more tolerant manner than I often find here. Age and material is proscribed by the curriculum, method of instruction is decided by the teacher and moral prescriptions are a parent responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
I was going to comment on #95 but Duncan correctly pointed out the problems. Here’s a simple smell test — if my wife stopped by at my school to drop off my lunch and gave me a quick peck on the cheek to say good bye, I doubt you would object but if this situation occurred with a gay teacher and his partner would you still be tolerant?
Report comment to moderator
#101 NJL
I understood your point but I also think the ambiguity of your comment is what has led many on the left to fear a “dominionist” takeover.
Report comment to moderator
kbellis #17 I seem to recall the same law however I think it was rejected by the left because it didn’t offer the same legal rights, privileges and responsibilities as a married couple or even a common law couple. It was a half measure.
Report comment to moderator
I came across this in the Washington Post. I think it’s how a lot of people in California are feeling like at the moment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html
Report comment to moderator
Along the lines of reducing the deficit, I’ve been looking at the website of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group “committed to educating the public about issues that have significant fiscal policy impact.” Specifically I read the document titled “Twelve Principles for Fiscal Responsibility.”
Here’s the link to the document (.pdf file)
Those twelve principles are as follows:
1. Admit That We Face Serious Fiscal Problems
2. Elevate the Issue of Fiscal Responsibility
3. Commit to Reducing the Deficit
4. Suggest Solutions to Fix Social Security
5. Suggest Ways to Address Rising Health Care Spending
6. Suggest Solutions to Outstanding Tax Issues
7. Plan to Reform the Budget Process
8. Use Honest Numbers
9. Offset the Cost of New Policies
10. Do Not Perpetuate Budget Myths
11. Do Not Attack Someone Else’s Plan (Unless You Put Forward an Alternative)
12. The Media Should Do Their Job
Various “Budget Myths” are listed under #10. (more in next post)
Report comment to moderator
re: #28 and #34 – The role of government.
I like the Apostle Peter’s description of a minimalist government – it honors those who do well and punishes those who do evil. (1st Peter 2:14)
Report comment to moderator
Budget myths:
Deficits don’t matter.
Health care reform is all that is needed to fix the problems.
Tax cuts pay for themselves.
Entitlement benefits cannot be changed because people have an earned or moral right to them.
Some policies are so important that we should not have to pay for them.
We can close the budget gap by reducing wasteful spending or cracking down on tax evasion.
We can grow our way out of the nation’s fiscal problems.
Just some food for thought. I don’t necessarily agree with everything, particularly the part about tax cuts. (That sent me over to Wikipedia to read the lengthy article on supply-side economics. The result? I’m still not sure). But I think that people need to seriously consider what they’re saying. Politicians need to come up with serious plans for long-term reform rather than just prescribing short-term Band-Aids. In that vein, the Committee praised conservative Rep. Paul Ryan (in another document on the website) for having the courage to propose a comprehensive fiscal reform plan. The committee offered one criticism of the plan, but added, “But comparing it to the current path we are on, it is a vast improvement, and comparing it to the other Congressional plans out there…well… there are none.” They also added, “Although the Committee takes no position on the particular policies in the plan, we greatly appreciate the Congressman’s willingness to take on these tough issues.”
Report comment to moderator
The idea of a man marrying a man is an affront to our Creator, Who has most assuredly not endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with men.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding economics, what does it take for an individual to prosper?
If all individuals prosper, the nation will prosper, won’t it?
Report comment to moderator
The idea of a man marrying a man is an affront to our Creator, Who has most assuredly not endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with men.
She as most assuredly not endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with women either — I do believe that is a privilege the lady grants.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Huh? God our Father doesn’t revoke or alter the way we were created. While I’m sure you don’t hold to same view of Genesis as many here, Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Report comment to moderator
The idea of a man marrying a man is an affront to our Creator, Who has most assuredly not endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with men.
The Bible doesn’t speak of unalienable rights of ANY kind. The term unalienable rights is an Enlightenment term that is wholly alien to the Bible.
The Founders, however, spoke of an unalienable right to political liberty and that liberty as they meant it, while they didn’t discuss sexual matters, certainly meant the unalienable right to worship false gods something else the Bible unequivocally forbids and as with homosexual sex, in the Old Testament, merits the death penalty. This is why many folks doubt the Founders’ Nature’s God was the God of the Bible but a more man centered benevolent God.
Report comment to moderator
The command to be fruitful and multiply isn’t the same as the right for men to have sex with a women. There is no right to sex for heterosexuals nor homosexuals only a responsibility to be fruitful (successful??) and multiply if one has the privilege of consensual sex.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I would simply note that according to a strict Sola Scriptura reading of the Bible there is no “right” to do anything. Whether the idea of rights was invented during the Enlightenment with Hobbes (and then Locke) or as some have argued during mideval times before the Protestant Reformation, the point is the theory had to be “posited” because it was “found” anywhere in the Bible. At least not explicitly. You may be able to implicitly “tease” something out of the Bible. But that “penumbral” or “living” interpretation of the Bible is dangerously close to theological liberalism or cafeteria Christianity. You might as well try to tease Darwin’s theory of evolution out of the Bible as well.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed
Report comment to moderator
I should also note there is a very very distinguished line of thought in academic literature mainly from social conservatives who argue that “rights” is a more modern, not authentically biblical concept. Indeed, these folks who are invariably anti-gay marriage would use gay marriage or the right to live one’s life as one pleases as a prime illustration of why the concept of “rights” is NOT compatible with preservation of a traditional Judeo-Christian moral order. As Leo Strauss put it, this liberal democratic concept of rights that America’s Founders established was a “solid” place to build a political order but it was also “low.” As he put it: the moderns built on low but solid ground.
On the other hand, I kinda dig rights talk because it has that kinky subversive effect. But I would NEVER step on the rights of conservative Christians to live their life the way they want. So ultimately rights/political liberty is good for all of us because it “leaves you alone” so to speak to establish voluntary communities where your socially conservative Christian lifestyles can flourish. Libertarian or classical liberal notion of rights demands a separation of School and State along with a separation of Church and State and Marshal Fritz, who recently died, who spearheaded this movement was a devout, traditional Roman Catholic and like me a libertarian.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Even you would have to admit that “multiplying” is difficult outside heterosexual sex! Adam and Eve were created to be eternal, monogamous partners in the design of marriage. Scripture also teaches that my husband’s body belongs to me just as mine belongs to him. We are not to withhold sex from our spouses without mutual consent.
(1 Cor. 7:3ff)
Report comment to moderator
Re: #114
The idea of a man marrying a man is an affront to our Creator, Who has most assuredly not endowed men with the unalienable right to have sex with men.
That’s fine. But we live under a Constitution that guarantees liberty and rights to all citizens equally.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane: Thanks for the Schiff link at 70. How ’bout those stimulus-happy, Keynesian bailout hounds? They could make using a fork sound like brain surgery.
Report comment to moderator
#105
Duncan, I appreciate your calm, friendly posts.
I don’t know. I know that I would not like seeing it, but I doubt I’d do much but raise my eyebrows, glance at my husband and sigh a bit. We might talk about it a bit on the way home too, but it depends just how friendly you’d gotten.
That doesn’t seem like too much. You probably wouldn’t even notice, because I do tend to be polite.
I think it’s a shame in lots of ways that we’ve become so hung up on homosexuality that men can’t be friendly anymore without eyebrows raising. Men in other cultures kiss on the check in greeting. Men in the past could throw their arms around one another in an embrace and put their arms on one another’s shoulders in affection.
But, now, to do any of that implies something much, much more. Men are afraid to even touch each other. I don’t know how to fix that, because, if I did, then your “problem” wouldn’t be much of one anymore. (Except for the dancing.) People wouldn’t automatically frown in disapproval, because touching one another wouldn’t automatically mean homosexuality.
Still, your examples are ones that involve other people’s reactions, not law or government — unless you’re suggesting that the government legislate people’s reactions and control their thoughts.
And, I’m sorry, but you’re never going to be able to keep a Christian (and many others) from thinking “Ewww” even with “hate” laws.
Of course, I privately think “Eww” or “that’s not right” for other things besides homosexuality, and those people can’t control my private thoughts or behavior either.
Nor should they (or you) in a free society.
And, that’s where the problem seems to be. For many homosexual advocates, their desire for acceptance is SO important that they are more than willing to step on my rights and try to force me and my children to ACCEPT them. They want to stop the private “eww” and the private look to my husband as much or more than they want equality under the law.
I support your right to work. I would even accept your right to have some sort of “civil union.” I could even be your friend. (I really could.)
But, I will never be able to accept that what you are doing is not sin.
And, you really can’t legislate me to do so. (Nor by hammering me with gay characters in EVERY tv show…you’d think you were 80% of the population for heaven’s sake! Nor by forcing my kids to believe differently than I do. And certainly not by big, nasty parades and street parties. — and, yes, Anlir, I’ve heard now about Mardi Gras. I don’t like it either.)
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Rest assured, to the best of my knowledge none of us has any interest in taking away any of your Constitutional rights. Of course, in the long run, Constitutional rights are rather irrelevant; you’re seeking what is not a moral right, so your legal right is rather a trivial point. But no, none of us will take away your right to choose what is morally wrong, so long as it doesn’t affect other people. Public sexuality (and I’d include immodest attire in that term) is wrong no matter who engages in it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I just read your article. I truly enjoyed it, and I hope it gets published widely. It was an inspiration. I did not know those historical facts you cited. Americans need to be reminded about the founding of this country.
Report comment to moderator
And our government is of the people. The people spoke in California among other states. Now there are 30 states which have gone to the polls to say “THIS how we want to live. THIS is how we feel about marriage.”
I have never met the American Christian who has the desire to establish a theocracy. Not in 56 years. It astonishes me that anyone even thinks they exist in any substantial number. They just don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #126
I think it’s a shame in lots of ways that we’ve become so hung up on homosexuality that men can’t be friendly anymore without eyebrows raising. Men in other cultures kiss on the check in greeting. Men in the past could throw their arms around one another in an embrace and put their arms on one another’s shoulders in affection.
But, now, to do any of that implies something much, much more. Men are afraid to even touch each other.
I’m gay, and none of my straight buddies think anything about hugging me or goofing around. They know the can’t catch “the gay” from me. They treat me no differently than any of the other guys in our circle. If someone accused them of being gay, they’d laugh or they’d say to the person “So what’s your point?”
Those who are freaked out and worried that straight men can no longer touch each other are, in my opinion, more worried about perceptions – specifically that they (or someone close to them) might be perceived as gay. But that’s because they still see being gay as something that’s bad or evil. For those who see being gay as of no more import than being left or right handed, it’s not an issue.
I believe it’s a generational thing. Younger people have grown up with gay friends and family members and don’t think anything about it. It’s the older people (over 40) who can’t get over being “hangup on homosexuality”.
Report comment to moderator
#123
We are not to withhold sex from our spouses without mutual consent.(1 Cor. 7:3ff)
I’ll try that line the next time my wife has a “headache”.
Report comment to moderator
TRS #126
Oy, it’s early. Up a couple of times with the puppy, husband (yes we are legally married, at least so far) up early to go in and check on some patients, thankfully the girls are still sleeping.
I too appreciate the calm tone of your responses, and yes, perhaps it is possible that we could be friends. I think one of the issues that we face is that for many, like you, it is just raising an eyebrow, (and we do notice, by the way. Perhaps we are just more sensitive to the reactions of others, but I find that our girls are starting to notice too) for others the reactions are more severe. Unfortunately the reactions can lead to incidents like the one at my daughters school this past week, or can lead to violence and death.
I agree that it is a shame that our society has become so insular and cocooned that any physical contact, especially between men is instantly suspect. It would be ideal if one day we could actually get to the “who cares?” point, but I fear that won’t be in my lifetime. And I agree that there can be many “eeewww” factors in any situation. Though again I find it interesting that lesbians seem to get a pass on this. Most of the vitriol is aimed at gay men. What it comes down to is how you choose to deal with the “eeeww”.
I’m not in any way advocating for thought police, but I do think that in a civil society that there are lines that should not be crossed. Think what you will, and practice free speech, but be aware that with free speech comes accountability. Reverend Green’s sermon that came perilously close to calling for the annihilation of gays is one example. The Hugh owens case in Canada is another.
As for the sin aspect, I cannot by word or action change your convictions, however, I feel that if my existence is a sin that it is between me and my creator. And when I meet said creator, I believe there is going to be a very interesting discussion.
I don’t watch much television so I can’t comment on the gay characters in the media, but it would seem that producers and writers strive to create shows that people want to watch, and perhaps the inclusion of a gay or lesbian character is simply a matter of reflecting that we exist in most people’s real lives, even if on the periphery.
I’ll ask you just one favour though. The next time you walk past me and my hubby, our daughters and now the puppy, try, just try, not to raise your eyebrows. It might actually not feel so bad.
Cheers.
Report comment to moderator
I am sick and hence unable to go to the regular weekly meeting of the Theocratic Army of Oppression Meeting at the church I attend.
This is quite disappointing to me – today we were supposed to learn how to kill a secular opponent in hand-to-hand combat, armed only with a Salvation tract (enough paper cuts and your opponent becomes weak from blood loss such that it is trivially easy to finish him off with a coup de grace) and a KJV study Bible (a terribly effective weapon when wielded as a club or bludgeon – it is good thing for Western civilization that the Vikings did not use KJV study Bibles as weapons, instead of mere battle maces and axes.)
Anyway after this training (which I would have enjoyed immensely), we were supposed to have a pot-luck dinner and then sing some hymns. So I am very disappointed and grouchy – my wife has given strict orders that I cannot go outside under ANY circumstances, even for something as pleasurable as standing on the front porch and throwing old shoes and boots at the dogs when they fight (there is a convenient pile of old shoes and boots I keep on the porch for just such a purpose).
I will probably be obedient to my instructions, which is highly unusual. There is a sharp chill in the light North wind; the sky is gray and sullen, and tiny, almost invisible, crystals of snow or ice meander uncertainly from sky to ground. And a left-wing community organizer from a neighborhood in Chicago has been elected President of the United States of America. So, all and all, ‘tis the winter of my discontent.
However, this enforced idle time does allow me to provide some additional material relevant to the strange and disordered mind of the average modern leftist. Keep in mind that most leftists, including most, if not all, who post on these threads, do NOT want to establish a totalitarian state, take away liberties, etc. They cannot think so very far down the road which their own rather narrow motivations and desires are pushing them – and, unfortunately, pushing everyone else at the moment, including me, which really grates.
The extent of their ideology is that they simply have a kind of weak uncertain desire for a great benign Mommy-State, in whose Great Pulsating Womb they can float about, sucking their metaphorical thumbs, all warm and comfortable and well-provisioned, connected to all the necessary feeding and elimination tubes, never hearing a contrary word or having to actually worry about anything other than exactly when the next injection of Soma will flow into their veins.
The rock on which they stumble, of course, is History. Drawing meaningful lessons from the study of History seems to be impossibly difficult for the average modern Leftist. So most just don’t worry about it. Historically, the record of the Left is as consistently dismal as a historical record can possibly get. Historically, every Leftist movement, unless arrested, inevitably leads to totalitarianism and despotism, which is, as I originally noted, the guaranteed result of current political/social/economic trends in America and in the West in general. This is certainly true historically and also currently; the much-ballyhooed European and Canadian models are simply currently evolving in the usual dismal direction; at some point the rate will accelerate and they will fall over the usual cliff.
To my Leftist friends on this blog, I will simply say, I am very sorry about History.
It is a terrible thing, this History problem, this History obstacle, that stands waiting, with folded arms, like a giant Colossus upon the horizon over which you want to take yourselves – and everyone else, willing or not.
History is so implacable and soulless and cold and calculating and so irritatingly certain; it is never wrong in its lessons.
And so, you see, I understand why you rail and gnash your teeth so much at the remorseless, unflattering, dream-denying lessons of History, or more usually, attempt to ignore it, altogether.
Report comment to moderator
Re homosexuals: It is interesting to me that homosexuals are left-wing (Statists) in general; it would seem that, practically and idealogically speaking, they would be more oriented toward unfettered Libertarianism.
It is a measure of their political stupidity that they support and embrace leftwing movements toward Statism. They think, I suppose, that the all-powerful State, in the final analysis, will actually tolerate them. Again forgetting History and the final imperative of the all-powerful State, as usual.
A stupid (politically-speaking) idea for them to have, of course, since a totalitarian State (the only possible final resultant of leftist ideology) views the lives and desires of its subjects in the most implacably practical terms.
Insomuch as the State will view all relationships as suspect, except to breed more or replacement slaves, homosexuals will, as usual, be jettisoned into the maw of the Beast that they helped create. And even the ‘breeding’ dynamic may be ‘off the board’ as technology develops to the point where breeding is done selectively and scientifically in labs using petri dishes to ensure even more mallable slaves.
Ah, the Brave New World that our Leftists are leading us into!
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting to me that homosexuals are left-wing (Statists) in general; it would seem that, practically and idealogically speaking, they would be more oriented toward unfettered Libertarianism.
Actually studies show that about 1/3 of homosexuals are Republicans or something of the like (non-leftist independents, Libertarians and whatnot). That’s a higher percentage than either Jews or blacks.
Report comment to moderator
I find Libertarians to be just as doctrinaire and absolutist as the Democrats and Republicans. They’re just doctrinaire and absolutist about different things. They have an ideology that they’re totally devoted to, just like folks in the other parties do.
But I am favorably disposed to Libertarians because they do favor personal liberty in many areas. The state shouldn’t be involved in the marriage business. Give all couples a civil contract, and leave marriage to the church. But if the state is going to remain in the marriage business, it should treat all citizens equally under the law.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: Possible, but that leaves the 70 or so percent who support Statism via left-wing idealogy, so the question/observation remains.
Report comment to moderator
Drill
History teaches us that almost all doctrinaire, ideological or religious driven movements end up as totalitarians. The left doesn’t have a monopoly on dictatorship. But you need not worry, the American political spectrum is extremely narrow and only allows for minor deviations from corporatist based rule.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D and NJ Lawyer:
Well, I TRIED to be funny on some thread the other day but by the time I got around to it, the only people left participating were Llama, RPN, Musing and Anlir.
Llama rose to the occasion splendidly, as usual.
RPN may have a sense of humor but it is hard for me to dredge up stuff that might actually appeal to him – it has been a long time since I was in a locker-room, or in grade school.
And Musing may or may not have a sense of humor. He probably does, because there are so many of him (he uses the plural a lot, as in ‘We can conclude’ and ‘We therefore infer’). I think that Musing is actually a kind of committee. So, anyway, SOMEONE in there must SURELY have a sense of humor.
Anlir, who usually has some sense of humor, actually seemed to think I was serious (I don’t even remember the exact subject now). This worried me a great deal for the better part of an entire nanosecond.
But not to worry, gentlefolks. With Obama as President, there will be ample opportunity for humor.
Right now I am too busy for humor; as I noted somewhere the other day, I am too busy trying to buy a F-18, before the Democrats take away my 2nd Amendment rights come January.
Report comment to moderator
It’s the older people (over 40)….
*****The OLDER people — Oh heavens! Stab me in the heart, why don’t you?
Yes, I turned 45 about 3 weeks ago. sigh. I’m taking it better than I took 40. sigh again.
Report comment to moderator
The following is a really interesting commentary from a Black person on Obama’s election. It is from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steele5-2008nov05,0,6553798.story
I will also put it as a Tiny URL, just for ease. But I wanted to post the real URL first, since some of you have said Tiny URLs make you leery.
http://tinyurl.com/57s7wk
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Nah. I think I remember arguing with you about this before.
The government (State) in ANY system is just a kind of Super-Corporation, in and of itself. And its ‘profit’ is measured in ‘power’. So your comments about ‘corporatist-based rule’ while appealing to the usual failed leftist rhetoric of the past one and one half centuries, are really meaningless in terms of history.
An all-powerful State is nothing but an all-powerful Corporation, whose board of directors (whether committee or individual) are the rulers, the controllers.
The only meaningful historical scale on ‘government’ is from none (anarchy) to Libertarianism, all the way to Statism, best expressed by Marx (absent his more patent absurdities), Mao, the proponents of National Socialism, etc.)
The leftist political ideology runs inevitably and truly to Statism – the various wrinkles in modern Leftism in terms of ’strains of libertarianism’ in regards to cultural mores are merely transients in the process.
Religion can certainly be a tool to establish the all-powerful corporation known as the State; but is never the end itself – only a possible means to the end of complete power. There has never been a true theocratic state in the history of man – there have been regimes that simply used theocracy in one form or the other to rule and to keep order.
Parenthetically the all-powerful State has no issue with controlled religion which is why we see the Canadian model now moving to redefine an ‘acceptable religion’, locally suited to the transient needs of the increasingly powerful State (read Corporation). Whether or not the State (read Super-Corporation) will maintain any reliance or tolerance of religion when it is all-powerful is really moot.
Like Anlir (but for very different reasons) I have natural sympathy for Libertarianism – but believe it unfortunately fails due to human nature.
There is a continual current in human history and institutions toward Statism, reversed at times by the effusion of much blood or by technological inability to maintain an all-powerful or nearly all-powerful State (Super-Corporation) over a large area or through events ‘beyond borders’.
With the entirely new situation in human history in which there are no more ‘beyond borders’ (no historical ebb and flo of new peoples and ideas) and technology development to allow unprecedented control over all aspects of human activity, including possibly thought itself, the scenario is truly frightening.
In the absence of a hope in something greater than humanity by itself.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, Happy belated birthday. I’m 46, it’s no big deal. And you look fabulous, darling.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
A friend sent me a very funny e-mail. It was a Dave Barry column about colonoscopy. I thought about you and your experience, so I checked Google. If you’re interested, you can find it with “Dave Barry” AND colonoscopy. I’ve never had one, but my wife has. She and Dave talked me out of it.
Report comment to moderator
I have added to the above list:
Statehood, or at least full Congressional represantantion for the District of Columbia. (A city about the size of Memphis. They already have a delegate.)
Report comment to moderator
Hey Drill, it sounds bad to say it but I actually enjoy reading what you write on this blog when you’re stuck at home with sickness. Many chuckles (happily) but also many more truisms (sadly). May God have mercies on our country as we endure that for which we’ve asked (elected).
Report comment to moderator
Drill — I believe some confusion of my position is evident from your narrow defintion of corporation (ie business). Corporatism refers to a system of governance where various corporate entities representing business, agrarian, cultural, religious labor groups etc meet together in public assemblies which yield the power of the state. Each group sends delegates to the assembly but the groups themselves are hierarchical in nature. Its an attempt to modernize feudalism and was favored by the Catholic church as well as European fascist. For the most part, its a reactionary ideology against the revolutionary ideas of the English, American and French revolutions. Thus we have a right wing reactionary ideology that eventually became totalitarian in nature — Italy, Austria, Spain, Portuagal, Hungary, and Romania.
Although the name, National Socialism, has led many in the US to cite Hitler as a leftist, they are misled. The name was created prior to Hitler’s membership and leadership of the party. The initial founders of the party did indeed have leftist leanings including land reform, social welfare etc., but even they proposed a guild-like system and thus were more backward looking than forward looking. In any case, Hitler purged this element in the Night of the Long Knives in which the chief ideologue Gregor Strasser was killed. His version of Nazism is called Strasserism and has experienced a renewal of interest in working class European youth who although socialist in economic policy reject the internationalist viewpoint of mainstream socialism. Hitler was embarrassed by this element when he negotiated his rise to power with the ruling coalition of German mega-corporations and Prussian aristocracy. After 1934, the Nazis were firmly on the right with the words “Socialist Workers” merely decorative.
From a little history we can see a tendency to statism when it suits the purposes of the rulers. Corporatism as an ideological force was in full retreat post WWII but has enjoyed a comeback of late. Current corporatist thought has dispensed with the open demonstration of force but relies more on the control and flow of information along with the mass marketing of a social-political narrative. Instead we have interest groups, corporate sponsorship, military-industrial complex, etc. A less obvious form of corporatism than Italy but its still the negation of democracy in favor of bargaining between elite groups.
Report comment to moderator
Chas – I’ve had a colonoscopy, & they’re not that bad. The worst part, if you could call it that, is the day before – the prep day. The actual procedure is a piece of cake.
When I would sit with my mom during her 6 – 7 hr. chemo treatments (for ovarian cancer), we met a guy named Steve who was battling colon cancer that had spread throughout his body. He said, “If I’d had a colonoscopy when I was supposed to, I wouldn’t be having to go through this now.”
Report comment to moderator
__The NEW WORLD ORDER?__
UK’s Brown: Now is the time to build global society
07:03 PM EST
LONDON (Reuters) – The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Brown — who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions — will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
“The alliance between Britain and the U.S. — and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. — can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order,” an excerpt from the speech says.
____LAST paragraph of article____
My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society.”
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE4A900K20081110?src=RSS-BUS
Report comment to moderator
Here is another commentary by a black pastor:
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/11/5_Is_it_Over.html
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I met a woman this afternoon who started talking to me about Greenspan. I said what I said here, that at his age he should have been savvy enought to take greed into consideration, at which point she told me about the Illuminati, which, she said, I can search on the internet. Apparently, they are a group of people (about 500) who control the world, and it was their intent to cause the mortgage crisis and now the stock market crashes. Well, I couldn’t get away from her fast enough, but I had to do it carefully. Fortunately, more people joined us and the subject changed. Perhaps Brown is one of the Illuminati.
(She also said that GWB has a getaway in Paraguay and controls the largest water aquifer down there, that he tried to flee the country, but “they” (Delta Force) are keeping him in the White House.)
Report comment to moderator
Chas, what Karen O said is exactly right. Fortunately, I have not needed it (so far) to save my life, but it would have been worth it. In other words, it’s not a fate worse than death.
Report comment to moderator
Two links of interest:
First my favourite leftist dissects the bailout as just one more time at the trough;
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24012700/the_new_trough
and second someone mentioned the Alaskan senatorial race — it appears they are still counting. Curious, don’t they count the absentee and advance votes prior to election night? American election law and/or practices need help.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/110908/loc_354024709.shtml
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Below is the group your friend is most likely speaking about.
The Bilderberg group
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3773019.stm
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2007/nworder/0128.html
NJL, I will post very shortly on the “The New World Order” –
God bless us as we look to HIM for guidance.
Report comment to moderator
The Bilderberg
http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm#country
Report comment to moderator
HRW: It would seem that you fail to grasp even the rudiments of the reality of power and human society.
Let me repeat the fact that a government is nothing but a kind of Corporation whose profit is power; a very powerful central government is nothing but a super-Corporation with monopolistic powers over all spheres of human activity.
All human government is reducible to a scale of government power over individual power/rights – merchantile corporate involvment, with which you have a Marxian fixation on (not surprising given the carefully contrived and approved version of ‘history’), is simply a side-show in that ratio. It adds to either the numerator or the denominator in that fundamental ratio, depending on how free enterprise actually is in a given historical construct.
When you push Socialism (i.e. Statism) and parrot ‘corporatist’ rhetoric you ignore the fact that, once again, you are actually pushing the Super-Corporation of the Almighty State, i.e. you are a proponent of the ultimate ‘Capitalist’ vision possible, a single all-powerful Mega-Corporation with complete and total and remorseless control over all areas of human activity, ranging from economic to cultural to life and death.
I really hate to break it to you, HRW, but as a Socialist (Marxist-Leninist), you are an adherent of the most oppressive form of unrestrained Capitalism able to be constructed, or envisioned, or imagined.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I’ll try that line the next time my wife has a “headache”.
So your desire for personal satisfaction would trump your compassion for your wife?
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
A serious question on what you would like schools to say. You state:
So here is the scenario:
One of the children in my daughters class (they’re in first grade, and have been there since kindergarten) has two mommies. The kids can’t help but see this – both moms come to the class activities and of course children love to talk to each other about their families.
Now kids are very astutue observers and listeners to what we say. So I’m talking about families and saying the usual things – that a family is about love, and you have a mom, and a dad, and then you have children, and she says “But you could have two moms, like ‘Jimmy’”
So, what exactly do you want the school to do, when they talk about families? Not allow ‘Jimmy’ to talk about his? Pretend ‘Jimmy’ doesn’t exist. Explain to the children that it’s “not right” to have two moms? [If that's your answer, bear in mind the natural cruelty of children. How do you want the other children to treat 'Jimmy'?] Should his moms be asked not to come to open house?
I mean, seriously, they are just another form of family. They exist; he goes to her school; his moms exist; they love and support their children and are involved in the school {which is more than I could say for some other kids!}.
If we do not treat them like just another form of family, then, how shall we treat them?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas – 158
Any child can come to school and talk about ‘their family’ that does not mean however, that the class should sign “pledge cards” regarding homosexuality – the pledge cards are nothing less than a NOT SO slick way to indoctrinate children about homosexuality. As Believers we don’t accept it, and we certainly have EVERY RIGHT to limit schools as to what they teach OUR CHILDREN, that includes homosexual activity, in any form –
We in California voted YES on PROP 8 and won. The people of our state do not want ’same sex marriage’ – we also don’t want our children signing anything without our permission -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Thanks for your response!
I agree with you on “pledge cards” being over the top.
But my question is, really, what do you want the school to do or say on a practical level about Jimmy, and his two moms? When children ask direct questions, or make direct statements, not because they’ve been indoctrinated, but simply because they have observed this child and his family, what is the appropriate and acceptable response by the teacher or school?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
When children ask questions like you are posing, it is only logical to instruct the children to ask their parents for the answer, never the teacher taking it upon themselves to give an answer that most likely might be controversial, and may not meet with the parents belifs, and rearing of their children.
If a child asks about how babies are born, it’s not up to the teacher to give a lesson on male/female sexual encounters, etc.
If a child asks why some children attend a Church, while others go to Temple, or a Mosque, it’s not up to the teacher to explain different religious doctrines, the differences, they should refer the children to their parents for instruction on religious matters.
It is NOT the teachers job to interfere in religious, sexual matters – Teachers would do WELL to stick with teaching children how to spell, read, comprehend what they read, learning math – if they do this, they will have their HANDS FULL, they won’t have time to interfere in the personal beliefs of children’s families, guiding them to beliefs which are COUNTER to the parents of they students.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, after I posted, I googled “illuminati” and there is a wikipedia. Today, it’s some sort of conspiracy theory. I have not heard of this Bilderberg group, but will enlighten myself with your link. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
you are a proponent of the ultimate ‘Capitalist’ vision possible, a single all-powerful Mega-Corporation with complete and total and remorseless control over all areas of human activity, ranging from economic to cultural to life and death. I really hate to break it to you, HRW, but as a Socialist (Marxist-Leninist), you are an adherent of the most oppressive form of unrestrained Capitalism able to be constructed, or envisioned, or imagined.
If the only version of socialism is the state capitalism of Stalin’s Russia or the current regime in China, then your statements are correct. However, a particular version of socialism derived from the Orwell, Proudhon and Bakunin school of thought — anarcho-syndicalism — doesn’t fit your statements. Local control becomes more important as well as cooperatives and community organizations. The nearest real life application of these ideals would be 1930s Barcelona, and smaller Communist ruled areas including San Marino in Italy and some small provinces in India. Many leftist in Latin America lean this way. Because of their emphasize on individual decision making, anarcho-syndicalist are rarely successful in centralized national levels of gov’t.
Report comment to moderator
So your desire for personal satisfaction would trump your compassion for your wife?
No because I respect my wife’s right to say no. To agree to withhold demand because of “compassion” is a form of noblise oblige – ie you are being nice but you are still in charge. Or to use an other word “pity” — the worst form of sympathy.
Report comment to moderator
If a child asks about how babies are born, it’s not up to the teacher to give a lesson on male/female sexual encounters, etc.
Since this question has an actual factual answer it is incumbent upon a teacher to answer the question in age appropriate manner. It serves no education purpose to withhold factual information from a child (age appropriate that is). If parents wish to tell their children there is a stork, the earth was created in seven days, etc that is their business but educators need to teach children according to their cognitive development and hence what we know to be accepted scientific fact. The science and health curriculum require it. Teachers should stop when the issues involve practice, morality, etc.
If a child asks why some children attend a Church, while others go to Temple, or a Mosque, it’s not up to the teacher to explain different religious doctrines, the differences, they should refer the children to their parents for instruction on religious matters.
Of course not, thats why we don’t teach religion in public schools. However, given the diversity of urban schools, we need to teach tolerance because children do as Thomas points out pick on each other for any deviation from the norm.
Teachers do have their hands full with the 3Rs however if they do not take the time to teach children that there are different beliefs, ideas and practises which need to be tolerated for the peace, order and good government of the school and playground the 3Rs will not be taught.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Ah, so we are not so far apart after all. My body belongs to my husband (and his to me), but we would never demand compliance because we love each other.
Repeated refusal is an issue to be examined, though, wouldn’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
Yes symptomatic of a deeper problem.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
These are two great sites -
Bilderberg exposed – Part 2/6 http://tinyurl.com/65zptw
The Bilderberg Group http://tinyurl.com/5fhzcg
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!