Post Election "high"

[FastCargo]

Interesting...

I usually avoid the "politics and religion" discussion...I had to jump in a bit though...

The idea of government service to earn the franchise of voting is not a new one. It actually can harken back all the way to Plato's "The Republic". Specifically, the idea of civic virtue, believing in the idea of a representative government strong enough to stake one's life on it...

For a more up to date discussion of civic virtue, I would recommend "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. Not the movie (please God not the movie!!), the book. Everyone who reads it gets a slightly different point out of it...a coming of age story, fast action read, or political idea book. However you may interpret it, go out and find a copy (new or used). It's a pretty quick read...great for a short layover or a couple of evenings.

Yes, I'm biased (I'll be the first to admit it) but I like the idea of the option to vote being earned rather than given. I will also note that there would be serious problems implementing such a policy...

Okay, just my .02...

Fly Safe!

FastCargo

PS Timebuilder...excellent post!

 

[TXCAP4228]

Salty Dog responding to ifly4food

You couldn't be more wrong. Our country was not founded on not ruling based on religious extremes. I am amazed at how many people get this wrong. There is no constitutional principle separating church & state, either.

Saltydog, I think you're the one who is mistaken here. Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declarartion of Independance) would disagree with you about the separation of church and state. TJ was the one who first wrote of a "...Wall of separation between church and state." (albeit in 1801).

From Salty Dog

As for oil & water, remember that the foundation of all law in America is the Constitution. Where does the Constitution get it's authority? The Continental Congress? No. The people? Nope. It gets its authority from God. Read it and you'll see. So you could say that all legal/political/governing authority in America is based on God. Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, to be exact. Hardly oil and water.

1) THE fundamental principal of American Democracy is that the government derives its powers FROM THE PEOPLE. The Declaration of Independance says (this is verbatum):
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

IMHO, that's pretty clear - power comes from the PEOPLE. Not from God, as you contend.

2) The "endowed by their creator" piece. Jefferson's sumbission to the 2nd Continental Congress did not use this phrase. In fact, Jefferson opposed the change in wording. This is not a good argument to support your position.

From Salty Dog

I urge everbody to re-read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They are extremely interesting for what they don't say, as well as what they do.

Salty, on this we agree 100%. Both documents are amazing and worthy of our respect.

Timebuilder, I feel like I got a little sidetracked here. Regardless of how any of us gets to why we agree with you, you really hit a home run.

(Edited for spelling and grammar - sometimes I tpye too fast .)

 

[prodigal]

H8U

Huh? Go back and read my post again. I'm curious as to how you arrive at that ill-gotten conclusion. Quite the opposite my, good man.

 

[Timebuilder]

I really must buy a laptop to take on the road.

Glad to see waka participating once again...it almost reminds me of the "old days" here on the board.

As to "adding" other named individuals to the list I mentioned:

>>To add to your list; George Bush's, John Ashcrofts, Trent Lotts, Rush Limbaughs, Grover Norquists...etc.<<

>> >>You forgot Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Now that these last two are leaving, the GOP can move into the 1980's, maybe the 90's.<<

Perhaps I am misinformed. Have all, or any of these people been coddled by Katie Couric on the Today show? Have they been pleasantly promoted by Bryant Gumbel? Have they been spoken of kindly by the Hollywood elite? Received kudos on the op ed page of the New York Times? No, gentle friend. They have benn villified out-of-hand, cast as demons of the realm. As conservatives, they are so often mischaracterized by talking heads on TV as to be almost laughable, were it not that this has happened in America, and not in Russia of the Cold War. Do the rantings of a certain James Carville ring a bell? The change in this information age has made it far more difficult to make these lies stick, and my point is that I too, was a victim of this misinformation, as well as a propagateur. You know doubt have heard the phrase "conservative talk show host....." when TV news types are speaking of any of several people. Ever hear Katie Couric say "Liberal news commentator so-and so"? No, and you won't hear that from her.

Truly, Clarence Thomas is the dem's worst nightmare: an intelligent, independent black jurist who didn't need a special social program to gain his entrance to the highest court in the land. Undoubtedly, this is why such a fearsome load of manure was delivered to a congressional hearing to attempt to derail his confirmation. Antonin Scalia is an equally qualified judge, and both Helms and Thurmond have been consistently returned to service by their constituents. What could be more American than that process of people choosing their representatives?

On God and government: suffice it to say that Jefferson's observation in a letter to some Baptists on the topic of "church and state" was not a part of any law, nor was it at any time a part of the constitution. There is NO constuitutionally mandated separtation of church and state. There IS a provision where the government may not institute an "official" religion. If you want more on this, we went several rounds on this one back when we heard about the ninth circuit court decision in reference to "one nation, under God". Somehow, and I'm not certain how this happened, this "establishment clause", as it is called, has been stretched so far as to take on the properties of Silly Putty.

I'm gratified that we could pursue this briefly, and in a manner appropriate to people who hurl people and plexiglass through the skies of America. As a country, we are one of a kind. Rarely imitated (good day, eh?) but never equalled, we are what others want to be, a free people constanly working on honing that freedom to the sharpest edge. This week we spoke, and our voices were not clouded by the spectre of hanging chads and uncounted ballots. We learned that a memorial is not a political rally, and that the ranks of our unemployed have swelled by the inclusion of the National pilots. The UN has agreed to inspections in Iraq, and interest rates are at a 41 year low.

So yes, this has been quite a week. When I fly to IAD on Sunday, I no longer have to worry about some wacko taking pot shots at me from the trunk of a Chevy, thanks to a guy who has been driving a truck for 36 years. He retires next month. God bless him.

And you, too.

 

[waka]

Salty Dog

The only "principle" of religion they were concerned with was the free practice of it.

Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion go hand in hand....can't have one without the other.

 

[TurboS7]

You are very right. All I shared on this board is how I chose a canidate and political party. I could care less how you and anyone goes about applying their standard.Yet 50% of the responses on this board said I was out of line. Who is telling who how to choose. To have no religion is to have a religion in itself, especially if I can't practice it and express my views the way that I want. Yes the guys that crashed the airplanes into the towers were expressing their views, but they crossed all the moral ground of the Bible and the Koran, taking one verse out of context in the Koran to justify themselves. My they pay that price for eternity.....

 

[Timebuilder]

Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion go hand in hand....can't have one without the other.

That's an idea that I used to hold dear, until I realized that in order to make "freedom from religion" a reality, you have to suppress all mention or conspicuous practice of religion.

Since the constitution does not guarantee a freedom from religion, and DOES guarantee our ability to practice religious belief freely, we have no way whatsoever of adding freedom from religion to our founding priciples.

It is an interesting side note that the founders had every expectation that almost every American would practice one form of religious belief or another. They simply didn't want the government to decide what that religious practice would be.

It is sad that our representatives can start every session with a blessing, and the President can hold a prayer breakfast, but our public school children are not afforded the same exercise of their rights as Americans.

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

What you need to realize is when most people talk about freedom FROM religion, they don't mean "nobody is allowed to express their religious beliefs and everyone has to keep them quiet." As far as I'm concerned, all that freedom FROM religion means is that I am free to choose not to belong to or practice any religion whatsoever. I am not one to bitch about people expressing their views.

As far as the whole prayer in school thing goes, the ONLY way it would be fair, equal, and all-encompassing would be to have one "prayer" or "blessing" from EVERY religion, and also some sort of equally meaningful statement for us atheists out there. As you can guess, that would be very time-consuming and not practical. Otherwise, to force all schoolchildren to recite or listen to just a Christian prayer would be totally unfair.

That is the problem, and that is why it is best to just leave prayer out of public schools altogether. Great diversity of religions and beliefs. Nowadays you have Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindu, Jewish, etc. etc. mixed into one student body and it just isn't right to expose them to one biased viewpoint with a Christian prayer.

There are many many Christian schools out there that people can send their children to if they want them to pray in class. Why not just send them there?

As for the whole founding fathers and "Christian Nation" arguement, all I can say is this -- It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter whether this is supposed to be a Christian Nation or not. The way for us to succeed as a nation is to respect others. Respect other peoples' right to believe or not believe as they choose, and stay united as one people with a great common interest -- FREEDOM. Hence the ORIGINAL national motto. "E pluribus unum" - From many, one.

That's what it's all about, friend.

 

[TurboS7]

It does matter and that view will be the fall of this great nation.

 

[cjh]

Posted by Burping_Boy: As for the whole founding fathers and "Christian Nation" arguement, all I can say is this -- It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter whether this is supposed to be a Christian Nation or not. The way for us to succeed as a nation is to respect others. Respect other peoples' right to believe or not believe as they choose, and stay united as one people with a great common interest -- FREEDOM. Hence the ORIGINAL national motto. "E pluribus unum" - From many, one.<<

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if, in this country that likes to wave the banner of freedom, one's personal religious beliefs were just that - personal. Not worn on one's lapel, not used for political or financial gain, not invoked to demean others with differing views, not wielded in a judgemental manner, not touted to advance one's own agenda. Just a personal belief that brings intellectual or emotional comfort to that individual. If people truly respected the rights of others then one's religious beliefs really wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, we're a long way from realizing that freedom.

 

[burping_boy]

TurboS7 - If you believe that respecting one's differing beliefs will be the fall of this nation, then you are:

1) Immature
2) Immoral
3) No better than Al-Queda

Time to grow up, son. Whether you like it or not, not everyone in this country is a Christian, and there's nothing you can do about it.



cjh - Excellent reply. Thanks.

 

[DoinTime]

A strike against Iraq would in some ways be preemptive as it would preempt FURTHER crimes by Saddam but it would also be punitive since he is already GUILTY of crimes warranting this action.

The same can be said for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Try looking at yourself from someone elses eyes sometime.

 

[Hovernut]

From Doin Time:

The same can be said for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Try looking at yourself from someone elses eyes sometime.

Evidently, you haven't done your time in defense of your country, otherwise you wouldn't make such foolish comments. Had you passed honors in Dress Uniform while sailing past the USS Arizona, had you been on the Memorial and had seen the fuel oil still rising to the surface one drop at a time from that tomb, you might think twice of your pacifist views.

Like it or not, the US and UK are the "Good Guys" of the world...the cowboys with the white hats. In order to secure a safe future for future generations and the human race in general, WE must take care of hoodlums who'd wreak havoc with ill-got weapons of mass destruction.

I, sir, am honored to have served aboard a Trident submarine standing vigilent with up to 240 W-88 warheads at the ready, but hopefully never to be used...get it...never to be used. Reagan's "Peace through strength" philosophy worked. I saw it from the depths of a Trident, and from an underground weapons accelerator at Los Alamos. We build these superior weapons in order not to use them, unlike the Saddams of the world! But when the time comes, they will be used to keep the peace.

Thank God there are fellow veterans willing to fight for this country and you and your right to exercise your views, whatever they may be!

Happy Veteran's Day!

 

[H8U]

Prodigal

"Huh? Go back and read my post again. I'm curious as to how you arrive at that ill-gotten conclusion. Quite the opposite my, good man."


I should have been more specific on that one, it wasnt directed to you, it was in response to those sandal-wearing tree-huggers from previous posts.

 

[Snakum]

"Like it or not, the US and UK are the "Good Guys" of the world...the cowboys with the white hats. "

That is one of the most unbelievably naive things I have ever read in my entire life. No wonder the Arabs hate us.

And before you start in with the right-wing hawk rhetoric ... I gave five years of my life in defense of your right to be ill-informed yet opinionted. I did my part for Uncle Sugar. But that statement is just ignorant. We are moving toward being a nation that bullies and coerces, the great 'World Police' and if George Jr. had his way we'd dissolve the UN and take over the whole show. Now I'm waiting for comments like "That's exactly what we should do" ... no ... what we should do is start looking after our own here at home and get our big fat nose out of other people's business.

And Turbo ... I have alot of respect for you, but if religion isn't kept out of legislation we're all screwed. Let's pretend George Jr. declares Marshall Law after another WTC-style attack and implements his own interpretation of the constitution ... the first time your interpretation of biblical law conflicts with his ... off to the camps for you! WHo decides? There are more versions of what the Bible really says than you could count with a Chinese adding machine.

Let's leave religion out of politics ... as the founding fathers and God intended.

Minh