NFB: Kerry's speech -- thoughts?

[Camaro4-2]

Some information on our country's heritage......
Watch for the "separation" of church and state.... thing.......

"One nation under God" "In God we trust". This country was based off of the Word of God. Freedom of religion without persecution. This country was STRONG, this country revolutionized the world under God. We've taken God out of the schools, we've taken God out of the courthouse, we've taken God out of most every aspect of our lives except the church. How many people do you know that are moral Christians these days, or whatever religion. My point is we've gotten so focused on separating religion for our lives that its becoming a word you cant say in public without people looking at you funny.

I dont want to raise a child in a world where everyone thinks its okay to have sex with whomever you want premaritally, I dont want to raise a child in a world where you can say every curse word but the f-bomb on daytime TV. I dont want to raise a child in a world where drunkeness and drugs, sexual immorality, abundant rage jealous hatred, bigotry, and all this sin is EVERYDAY life! Where are our morals going? I know this isn't all of us but a large populous of the country.

I just want you to look at one thing open-mindedly...
read this passage and tell me what is more of reality now adays...the first part or second...

Galatians 6:19-25
"The acts of sinful nature are obvious:sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;idolarty and witchcraft;hatred,discord,jealousy,firts of rage,selfish amibition,dissensions,factions and envy;drunkenness, orgies,and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kindom of God.
(22)But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,peace, patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness,gentleness ,and self-control. Against such things there is no law.Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit let us keep in step with the Spirit."

I see the first half much more than i've ever seen the second.

[Dave M]

This has absolutely nothing to do with our government trying to impose their religios beliefs upon immigrants entering the country or own people for that matter, alarmingly instead it is just the opposite. It is all the immigrants and even some our own that want everything changed in this country just because it does not suit their beliefs, morals, and just sometimes their opinion. So according to your theory we are supposed to adjust our federal laws and regulations in such a manner that would make everyone happy so that they may go to bed with a warm fuzzy feeling inside because America didn't tell them what to do. Horse$hit. I guess if all of the middle-eastern immigrants start to take offense to the fact that the American flag is publicly displayed here in our homeland and that interferes with their religion, I suppose we the people of the United States are to oblige them and ban all public display of American flags. Come on man, wake up.

You start off by making the false statement that this country does not support religion and then you make the not suprisingly contradictory statement stating that this country was founded on the "freedom of religion". Our forefathers did accept the Bible as God's law and fortunately they chose to write most of the current laws based on that very precedent. Therefore, our Federal, State, City, and County laws are inherintly Godly based. This cannot be changed, should not be changed, and must be obeyed. Simple as that.

Laws and rules by no means exist to please everyone. Instead they exist to do their best at keeping the place we call home a civil place to live. A place that has a sructured order that maintains a specific chain of command in order to keep the peace and provide the people with a vote in whom they choose to run the important positions within this chain of command.

It is not our government's obligation nor is it in their best interest to try and please everyone that resides in this country. First of all it is impossible to please everyone and by attempting to do so would only dilute their efforts to simply do what is morally and ethically right.

American laws are American laws. American rights are American rights. They are not a privelege they are a right. A gift if you will. They are there for a reason. If someone living here does not like them, the Canadian border is not that far of a drive.

I was speaking about the comments made on this board by board users, not about what our government is doing to immigrants. If people choose to come to this country, they need to abide by the laws of this country.

If I made a false statement by saying this country does not support religion, then it is false because people in government have pushed their agenda forward. You claim I made a contardictory statement when I said this country supports freedom of religion. That is bull. If it is contradictory, it is only in your mind. The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

If that's not protecting the "free exercise thereof" that I spoke about, how else could I have put it? Because you are Christian does not make everyone else christian. Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people have beliefs different from your own, and that your beliefs may not always be the right ones. Even if they are right, which I'm sure you feel they are, that does not prohibit others from disagreeing with you.

When the Constitution was written, christianity was not the only religion. Many of the first American citizens came here specifically to avoid religious persecution. The founding fathers recognized that fact and specifically outlawed any government support or restriction of a specific religion.

The First Amendment ensures that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.

From www.firstamendmentcenter.org:
"Most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but de the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

Further, courts wrestle daily with First Amendment controversies and constitutional clashes, as evidenced by the free-press vs. fair-trial debate and the dilemma of First Amendment liberty principles vs. the equality values of the 14th Amendment.

Such difficulties are the price of freedom of speech and religion in a tolerant, open society."

Your idea of a marriage is a man and a woman based on your beliefs. What if someone doesn't hold christianity dear? Should they be restricted by your beliefs? Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, or we do end up with the man/dog situation you spoke about. But who's to say where that line is? It's a tough question. Some major religions did, at least at one time, promote multiple marriages. By making laws against that practice, your are prohibiting the "free exercise" of their religion.... unconstitutional.

[markd79ta]

kevin-

i dont know too much about politics but i will tell you this much, i saw clintons nomination speech in 92' (i didnt see kerry's) and he took bush sr.'s mess and cleaned it up with his "new covenant" proposal. im sure you had no problem finding a job during his time in office. clinton took bush jr's fathers mess and cleaned it up... thats why he got two terms.. simple.... new ideas, thats what liberals are all about a new approach and it worked didnt it? now i believe kerry can take bush jr's mess and clean it up and manage it to the extent clinton did. and thats not just my opinion, thats everyones here in boston...........

I understand that a lot of people have this opinion, but it fails to look at two important points. The first being that Clinton's agenda failed. Clinton lost Democratic Control of Congress in the '94 election based on the ridiculousness of the first two years. Starting in January of '95, both the House and the Senate were controlled by Republicans. The first thing the Republicans did was roll back most of the Clinton agenda & Congress's horrid tax increases that were passed in the '93 budget. The second thing the Republicans did was work on reforms such as Welfare. The second thing that produced a good economic climate was the IT boom. A new industry created a bull market with A LOT of investment in that industry. Given the success after '94, Clinton jumped on the bandwagon. If you don't believe me, just do the research. You can find everything you need at the Library of Congress.

There are two disastrous things that Clinton did when he was in office. The first and most important was in effect shutting down oil production in Alaska which is making us even more dependent on foreign oil. The second is shutting down miles of nation forest roads. It is great, especially in Colorado, that the access roads are being overgrown so it makes it 10x harder to get to forest fires. In addition, 4X4 clubs are up in arms. These were executive orders to satisfy the growing pressure of the environmentalists.

The Clinton years were not that great as some would like you to believe, and I get a little agitated about his taking credit for the economy. It was said best that Clinton was a master at taking credit for what he didn't do and denying what he did do. The government CAN NOT create a good economy. They can, however, screw up the economy by over taxation and regulation.

[Dave M]

Can we all just agree to disagree?! Opinions are very rarely changed. Human nature keeps people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong no matter what the argument is. This thread is getting us no where except using valuable time and resources and threatening to cause riffs between people on this board.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Can we all just agree to disagree?! Opinions are very rarely changed. Human nature keeps people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong no matter what the argument is. This thread is getting us no where except using valuable time and resources and threatening to cause riffs between people on this board.

Yea I don't want to get into religion here either. Lets stick to policy and what both candidates want to do if elected.

Speaking of that, I just heard Bush wants to back tax reform in his second term http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm . We're talking scrapping the IRS and going with the fair tax plan http://www.fairtax.org/.

[Camaro4-2]

I was speaking about the comments made on this board by board users, not about what our government is doing to immigrants. If people choose to come to this country, they need to abide by the laws of this country.

If I made a false statement by saying this country does not support religion, then it is false because people in government have pushed their agenda forward. You claim I made a contardictory statement when I said this country supports freedom of religion. That is bull. If it is contradictory, it is only in your mind. The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

If that's not protecting the "free exercise thereof" that I spoke about, how else could I have put it? Because you are Christian does not make everyone else christian. Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people have beliefs different from your own, and that your beliefs may not always be the right ones. Even if they are right, which I'm sure you feel they are, that does not prohibit others from disagreeing with you.

When the Constitution was written, christianity was not the only religion. Many of the first American citizens came here specifically to avoid religious persecution. The founding fathers recognized that fact and specifically outlawed any government support or restriction of a specific religion.

The First Amendment ensures that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.

From www.firstamendmentcenter.org:
"Most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but de the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

Further, courts wrestle daily with First Amendment controversies and constitutional clashes, as evidenced by the free-press vs. fair-trial debate and the dilemma of First Amendment liberty principles vs. the equality values of the 14th Amendment.

Such difficulties are the price of freedom of speech and religion in a tolerant, open society."

Your idea of a marriage is a man and a woman based on your beliefs. What if someone doesn't hold christianity dear? Should they be restricted by your beliefs? Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, or we do end up with the man/dog situation you spoke about. But who's to say where that line is? It's a tough question. Some major religions did, at least at one time, promote multiple marriages. By making laws against that practice, your are prohibiting the "free exercise" of their religion.... unconstitutional.

You make valid points. I once pitched the same argument. Can I pray for you Dave?

[Christopherrr]

If people choose to come to this country, they need to abide by the laws of this country.

That, to me, is enuff said...if you dont like it here, or the laws, go somewhere else...it's the laws that made our country the way it is...I don't want to see our way of life destoryed...eh, distrupted, because of their religon background.

When I was in school...I was proud to say the Pledge..."one nation, under God..."

[Dave M]

You make valid points. I once pitched the same argument. Can I pray for you Dave?

You can pray all you want. You certainly wouldn't be the first. I've wrestled with religion for most of my life due to things in my past, and I've studied most major religions, especially christianity. There are two gentlemen at work that are the most religious people I know, or have ever met. We constantly debate, not because I don't believe their position, but because I love to play devil's advocate. In reality, I don't know what is the truth because I was not there when it happened. Throughout my life I believe things based on a court-room style evidence structure. If it can be proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt, then I'm likely to accept your position as the truth. After I read "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, I had to admit to myself that the Bible as it is written, at least as far as Jesus is concerned, is most likely true. It's an excellent book that I reccomend for those sitting on the fence. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

However, because I believe, or you believe, or anyone else believes, does not give us the right to expect or force others to believe anything we believe, regardless of the issue. I consider myself very tolerant and open-minded, and I think people have the right to live their lives how they want.

Certain people on this board have said in the past that the government shouldn't tell us how to live our lives, that their is too much government involvement in daily lives, and other simliar comments. But yet those same people want everyone to abide by their christian beliefs and feel the government as a right to force them to do so. That line of thinking to me is unfathomable. i just don't get it.

You can believe all you want, but the Constitution of this country garauntees that others can believe what they want.

[markd79ta]

There is one more thing that I would like to add to this thread. I was talking to one of our former State Representatives (pretty moderate guy) about politics in general this weekend as well as the state of our country.

I think the most scary thing that we are facing as a country revolves around a government that lost its divisions and limitations. In the 1930s, the Supreme court was stacked by FDR in order to reverse the decision on the National Recovery Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court. When the Commerce Clause became the rule of the land (in other words anything goes), we created a government that lost its divisions and limitations. It has evolved into a machine where every special interest pushes for either a piece of the pie or a cause. It is crazy to me that people look at the President as the end-all-be-all of policy. It is crazy that policy is made in the Supreme court. It is crazy that we are debating an amendment banning gay marriages. It is crazy that we entertain the policy of environmentalists who want the government to lock down land whether privately owned or not. Both Democrats and Republicans are dominated by special interests. And, remember, special interests are not obscure groups. They are, however, groups of us...Americans...who have different views and opinions.

When it is all said and done, we have two basic rights. The right to our person and property and the right to defend it. When these things are under attack and taken away, we have nothing. I am a very conservative Christian and I think the amendment on gay marriage is crazy because these people have rights, not special rights, but rights that we all should have. I believe that Christians in the "Christian Right" are twisting the good news into condemnation that no Christian has the right to do, and we are losing ground because of it. All Christians have sin, and all had to take that sin to the Lord through Jesus. No sin outweighs another, and our job is to help, identify, and provide counsel to others if asked, but that is where it ends. Christians should worry about the church not the government or non-believers...take a few lessons from Paul in this regard. Additionally, it is the same constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of religion that these people have. If we want to take away the rights of people in our society then who is to say that our rights may be next on the chopping block. I am very familiar with Gordon's comments and I held several seminars in my college days so that people had a better idea of the truth. However, this is a function of public opinion. There is a strong force that wants to tear God out of our country and its history. I think it is sad that God is being torn away, but this is again a function of public opinion...the government can't force it. We are just left to deal with the consequences, and George Washington predicted the consequences so we have that going for us

Government should be about protecting freedoms, and protecting its citizens right to self determination. It is not about promising to take care of people, but allowing them to pursue opportunity and allowing them to pay for bad decisions. And, yes, people should be allowed to pay for bad decisions. I had to pay for mine. I will never say that Dems or Repubs are 100% right...they both have serious problems. However, it is important to look at the groups who make up each party, and majority rules. I don't necessarily vote for who I like, but I do vote against who is attacking me. As a collective, dems are supported by groups that attack me so I can't support them. However, I have met and became friends with a lot of democrats at the legislature. It is the collective that scares me not any one person.

Anyhow, my point is this. There should be limits to government and there should be mutual respect of all people. No one group should deny the life, culture, and way of life of any other group...PERIOD.

[Dave M]

There is one more thing that I would like to add to this thread. I was talking to one of our former State Representatives (pretty moderate guy) about politics in general this weekend as well as the state of our country.

I think the most scary thing that we are facing as a country revolves around a government that lost its divisions and limitations. In the 1930s, the Supreme court was stacked by FDR in order to reverse the decision on the National Recovery Act that was struck down by the Supreme Court. When the Commerce Clause became the rule of the land (in other words anything goes), we created a government that lost its divisions and limitations. It has evolved into a machine where every special interest pushes for either a piece of the pie or a cause. It is crazy to me that people look at the President as the end-all-be-all of policy. It is crazy that policy is made in the Supreme court. It is crazy that we are debating an amendment banning gay marriages. It is crazy that we entertain the policy of environmentalists who want the government to lock down land whether privately owned or not. Both Democrats and Republicans are dominated by special interests. And, remember, special interests are not obscure groups. They are, however, groups of us...Americans...who have different views and opinions.

When it is all said and done, we have two basic rights. The right to our person and property and the right to defend it. When these things are under attack and taken away, we have nothing. I am a very conservative Christian and I think the amendment on gay marriage is crazy because these people have rights, not special rights, but rights that we all should have. I believe that Christians in the "Christian Right" are twisting the good news into condemnation that no Christian has the right to do, and we are losing ground because of it. All Christians have sin, and all had to take that sin to the Lord through Jesus. No sin outweighs another, and our job is to help, identify, and provide counsel to others if asked, but that is where it ends. Christians should worry about the church not the government or non-believers...take a few lessons from Paul in this regard. Additionally, it is the same constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of religion that these people have. If we want to take away the rights of people in our society then who is to say that our rights may be next on the chopping block. I am very familiar with Gordon's comments and I held several seminars in my college days so that people had a better idea of the truth. However, this is a function of public opinion. There is a strong force that wants to tear God out of our country and its history. I think it is sad that God is being torn away, but this is again a function of public opinion...the government can't force it. We are just left to deal with the consequences, and George Washington predicted the consequences so we have that going for us

Government should be about protecting freedoms, and protecting its citizens right to self determination. It is not about promising to take care of people, but allowing them to pursue opportunity and allowing them to pay for bad decisions. And, yes, people should be allowed to pay for bad decisions. I had to pay for mine. I will never say that Dems or Repubs are 100% right...they both have serious problems. However, it is important to look at the groups who make up each party, and majority rules. I don't necessarily vote for who I like, but I do vote against who is attacking me. As a collective, dems are supported by groups that attack me so I can't support them. However, I have met and became friends with a lot of democrats at the legislature. It is the collective that scares me not any one person.

Anyhow, my point is this. There should be limits to government and there should be mutual respect of all people. No one group should deny the life, culture, and way of life of any other group...PERIOD.

Mark, I have to say that I don't often agree with some of the things you post, but that was very, ver, VERY well said and I completely agree. COuldn't have said it better myself. Some Christians love to tout that they have the constitutional right to their religion, but conveniently forget that it goes both ways.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I don't really want to get into religion a whole lot, but I gotta say that even as a Republican who will likely be voting for Bush in November... I really do support Kerry's thoughts on religion more than Bush's.

"I do not boast that God is on our side... rather I pray humbly that WE are on GOD'S SIDE." Strong.

[markd79ta]

Mark, I have to say that I don't often agree with some of the things you post

This is good, divergent opinions can either be our greatest asset or our greatest curse. This country saw so much progress and innovation through divergent opinion and new ways of looking at problems. Although, divergent opinion can be a horrible curse when a government is used as forum to push that opinion on others. In application to all groups, so much more could be done if they put their effort and resources into action instead of the political process. For instance, environmental groups should pool resources to buy land and build sanctuaries instead of pushing for governmental regulation that angers others. On the flip-side, Christian activists should spread the good news through love, missions, and community help projects instead of using the government to force feed their beliefs. These are only two of many groups pushing the fabric of our nation. There just needs to be limits. I totally believe in the Progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt with regard to work rules and conservationism (not to be confused with preservationist thought.) However, there is a difference between those policies and the over intervention that we see today. We are so divided as a nation because the policies of special interests pushed through government are enraging its citizens by dismissing the thoughts, feelings, and culture of communities of interest. For instance, my way of life is vastly different from somebody on the east coast. Who is to say that one is better then the other...the federal government shouldn't. Instead of a collection of ideas, we have a war of ideas and it is tearing our country apart.

[Dave M]

This is good, divergent opinions can either be our greatest asset or our greatest curse. This country saw so much progress and innovation through divergent opinion and new ways of looking at problems. Although, divergent opinion can be a horrible curse when a government is used as forum to push that opinion on others. In application to all groups, so much more could be done if they put their effort and resources into action instead of the political process. For instance, environmental groups should pool resources to buy land and build sanctuaries instead of pushing for governmental regulation that angers others. On the flip-side, Christian activists should spread the good news through love, missions, and community help projects instead of using the government to force feed their beliefs. These are only two of many groups pushing the fabric of our nation. There just needs to be limits. I totally believe in the Progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt with regard to work rules and conservationism (not to be confused with preservationist thought.) However, there is a difference between those policies and the over intervention that we see today. We are so divided as a nation because the policies of special interests pushed through government are enraging its citizens by dismissing the thoughts, feelings, and culture of communities of interest. For instance, my way of life is vastly different from somebody on the east coast. Who is to say that one is better then the other...the federal government shouldn't. Instead of a collection of ideas, we have a war of ideas and it is tearing our country apart.

Again, I completely agree. The abortion issue is another, and it's closely tied in with the relion issue. If pro-life supporters want to reduce or elliminate abortions, they should do so through education and alternatives to those considering it. Murdering the doctors who perform the abortions, picketing clinics, and working to overturn Roe v. Wade only serves to alienate the cause from most americans.

Informing those considering abortion about the available alternatives and the harm abortions can cause may or may not work in every case, but would be seen as reaching out and furthering your cause rather than as trying to force your worldview onto others.

[markd79ta]

Again, I completely agree. The abortion issue is another, and it's closely tied in with the relion issue. If pro-life supporters want to reduce or elliminate abortions, they should do so through education and alternatives to those considering it. Murdering the doctors who perform the abortions, picketing clinics, and working to overturn Roe v. Wade only serves to alienate the cause from most americans.

Informing those considering abortion about the available alternatives and the harm abortions can cause may or may not work in every case, but would be seen as reaching out and furthering your cause rather than as trying to force your worldview onto others.

Abortion is one of the most divisive topics there is. Personally, the thought of it makes me ...all of those poor souls who never had a chance to defend themselves. People talk about when life begins and when we can survive on our own. We all went through that stage of development and infants definitely can't survive on their own. Heck, my toddler can't survive on his own...where do we draw the line? They talk about choice, and in my opinion...the choice was made at conception and abortion is the quick fix to abandon the responsibility at the cost of another life.

I totally agree that lashing out, hurting doctors, or blowing up buildings is wrong. I also agree that the only change can come through public opinion and awareness. However, the fact that we as a society allow this to happen is alarming and it contributes to the degradation of our society and the lack of respect for others we see today.

[Mirroredshades]

Well, I've let this thread go on for 8 pages without expressing my opinion so here it goes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No comment.
.
.
.
.
.
.