I have edited my blog to reflect somethings I have change my view on.
I cannot choose Barack Obama because:
#1 He is pro Choice
#2 He doesn't believe in capital punishment
#3 He doesn't support the tax credits for private schools
#4 He believes we need to do something about global warming
#5 . He believe in Universal Healthcare
#6 He believes in Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants
#7 He opposes the war effort
#8 He believes in Stem Cell research on embryos
#9 He is not patriotic. that I have seen.
I hear everyone supporting Barack Obama. I simply cannot see what is so great about him? My friend is voting for this man because he is handsome and sounds like a really nice guy.
I have watched him. He does sound like a nice man. His family seems really nice too.
However, he sounds like a sweet talker. He has all these grand plans to make America better and I don't like them. He is a socialist in disguise.
Plus, I have seen that he isn't patriotic about our country. I have to say, You want to be president and aren't patriotic?? This gives me great cause for concern. Why does he want to be president?
Some have said this whole patriotic thing is just ridiculous..If patriotism is some how bad. Then you must hate America!
Being patriotic is by definition one who loves his country. Not the love of government.
If you are not a patriot you are a traitor. This doesn't mean I am a fascist. I believe the government has plenty wrong with it. I believe in our country the way it was founded originally.. I am a constituionalist!
Isn't patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel, according to Samuel Johnson?
Half of that I disagree with, I see some of your points are true, and not good. But half of them, are poor reasons to vote against him. If this were an argument or debate, I'd say you'll have to do better, but it's not. So, I simply disagree with you.
"My Shoes Are On The Ground, But My Feet Are In The Air."
-Katt Martin.... whenever... who the crap knows what this girl is talking about anyway?
Regarding your second reason: Barack Obama knows more about the constitution than most people ever will. Barack Obama is a legal scholar who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Surely, you're not claiming to be more of an authority on the constitution than Barack Obama?
A knowledge of the constitution would be welcomed after this administration acts as though they've never heard of it.
I have already commented this particular subject. I don't claim to know anything now. I have been shown some facts that have changed my opinion on that subject.
To the author one thing you said in your responses that the founders believed murder was wrong because God said so. If you don't realize that murder is wrong unless God says it you truly have no morals. As a person you realize what's right or wrong by asking the question if I want it done to me that's it.
Obviously I have morals. That is kind of a duh really. The bible teaches that the ways of the Lord are written on our heart. We know right from wrong. I chose a really bad example for my point. Sorry. I will have to go back and read what my point was in the first place.
I have been looking around and find that some of the quotes were not confirmed. Not complete lies like some have said. Some have been confirmed. He didn't rewrite history he simply didn't sight sources for his information.
William Federer's book is a great source for quotes and I don't believe the quotes that I have mentioned have been distorted.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
Saying that a quote is "not confirmed" really means that there is no primary source that can credibly be used to attribute that statement to the sources Barton claimed. Barton originally presented these quotes as if they were confirmed, and only changed his story after being confronted with his intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Even today, after admitting that these quotes lack credibility, he continues to use them to support his deceptive claims. That is hardly what one would call honest scholarship, I think.
The frankly, you aren't paying very close attention. I have given you some very specific examples, which should be easy enough for you to look up independently and review the original sources, and see the distortions for yourself. If you aren't willing to do the work and approach the issue objectively, there's nothing I can do to convince you. If you are willing, however, and have the intellectual integrity to hold these sources to a serious scholarly standard, you will have little choice I think but to reject these men as the frauds that they are.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Let's talk about John Jay:
The first chief justice appointed by George Washington.
October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to ur people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privelege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers"
May 13, 1824
"By conveying the bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was orginally created and placed in a state of hapiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.
The bible will also inform them that our gracious creator has provided for us a redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this redeemer has made atonement for the sins of the whole world and thereby reconciling the divine justice with the divine mercy has opened a way for our redemtion and salvation; and that thes inestimable benefits are fo the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving nor in our power to deserve."
That letter was written to the American Bible Society.
He also stated:
"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination,I found to be confirmed by the Bible...At a party in Paris,once, the question fell on religious matters. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and I thanked God that I did.
In 1826 John Jay was asked to attend a celebration of America's 50th anniversary he wrote a letter to Corporation of the City of New York expressing:
"Earnest hope that the peace, happiness and prosperity enjoyed by our beloved country may induce those who direct her national counsels to recommend a general and public return of praise to HIm from whose goodness and blessings descend..
Okay, let's talk about him. John Jay was probably one of if not THE most intolerant protestant christian to be found among the founders. Yes, George Washington appointed him Chief Justice, but Jay only served in that post for six years before leaving the bench to become governor of New York, where he led an unsuccessful campaign to have all catholic citizens expelled from the State. He was a VERY opinionated man, but his views were not typical among the founders.
It is an interesting quote, but Jay was not in office when he said this. This was his personal opinion. In fact, George Washington (who appointed Jay to the Court), strongly disagreed with this sentiment on a number of occasions, such as when he said to the member of the New Church in Baltimore that...
"In this land of equal liberty it is our boast that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding offices that are known in the United States." (LINK)
...or when he said in his letter to Moses Seixas...
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." (LINK)
No one here is suggesting that there were no a great many christian men and women in the early United States, especially after the Second Great Awakening (which began shortly after the founding period ended). But, quotes of this sort have absolutely nothing to do with the government that those citizens enacted to protect themselves from social tyranny and religious persecution. Because so many of our early citizens fled to the colonies to escape religious persecution at the hands of a religious monarchy, that they understood that religion and government should not be intermixed.
Religious freedom is just that...to be free to believe as one's conscience directs. Jay is not a good example of this principle, but then...he wasn't the one that our founders felt best suited to pen our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Jay undoubtedly disagreed with MANY of the opinions which did in fact make their way into the final, ratified Constitution, but the simple fact is that when it came time to put their signatures to the Constitution, it was religious freedom, rather than religious uniformity that they set forth as a founding principle.
For example, Jay may have thought that "select and prefer Christians as their rulers," but the Constitution very specifically forbids the consideration of religion as a prerequisite for serving in our government, esuring that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI. Section III.)
And, we know from the writings of many founders that the "great majority" of our founders knew of and specifically intended to extend that protection to non-christian denominations, including "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination" (from Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography). If the question is whether or not the First Amendment can be correctly interpreted to support the phrase "separation of church and state," doesn't it make sense to you to refer to the author of that amenment's own explanations?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Acutally, what Jefferson said (many times) that matters of this sort were a matter best left between A man and HIS god. He rarely personalized any statement of that sort. In the letter to the Dabury Baptists, he said, "that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God," and in the letter to Benjamin Rush, he enjoins "every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others" and notes that the laws have left a man's "questions of faith" to be "between God and himself."
It is true that Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration, but it is quite a leap to suggest that this document represented "the christian morality of the founders." James Madison and Benjamin Franklin were also intimately involved in the process of writing of the Declaration, and all three of those men were known in thier time to have utterly rejected the religion of christianity in favor of the more rational tenets of Deism.
In fact, if you read the Declaration closely and in the context of the prevalent philosophical rhetoric of the 18th Century, you would notice that the particular turns of phrase used in the doccument were lifted from a series of books and tracts that advocated for Deism. For example, note that Jefferson did not write "my Creator" or "our Creator." He specifically said "their Creator" in order to emphasize that beliefs of this sort belonged to the individual, not the State. Jefferson also refers to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," rather than to the "Laws of the bible and christianity's God." The terms he used come directly from the Deist's perspective of "Natural Law," which is to say that the reasons for moral thought can be found in the natural world, without the need to appeal to a supernatural source for inspiration.
The fact that these phrases are deistic in origin is somewhat obscured because of the intended target of the Declaration, who was of course the King of England, a man who derived his power based on the belief in the Divine Right of Kings, and who held his office under the pretense of religious authority. Because of this context, certain forms needed to be observed, and the religious lingo was part of that form. It acutally strikes me as slightly funny, since Jefferson was able to meet the needed forms while subtly avoiding any actual consent to the beliefs which those forms required.
That seems a little disingenuous to me. The question of what Mr. Jefferson believed is directly relevant when we are considering what he meant when he participated in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
I think you are confusing your beliefs as a modern christian with the beliefs that were common at the time of the founding. It is interesting to note that the Declaration of Independence was itself an evolution of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (also written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). What makes it interesting (in this context) is something that Jefferson said about the Statute in his Autobiography. He said...
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
It is clear, I think, that our founders--many of whom were christian, and many of whom were not--understood that the entanglement of religious beliefs and the powers of government were a dangerous thing that had been historically proved to lead always to tyranny and oppression, rather than freedom and enlightenment.
That wasn't me, but I will respond by saying that you should consider the purpose and context of both the Declaration and the Letter. The Declaration was written to a King, telling him that the People of the United States would no longer submit to his will. The Letter was a response to a question posed by a group of citizens who wanted to know...specifically...what was the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I don't really consider either of these to be propogandistic, but rather simply that they were documents intended for very different and specific audiences.
"Innocent until proved guilty" isn't found in the Constitution, either. Would you also suggest that this phrase is does not reflect a real part of our Nation's jurisprudence? The simple fact is that the very same men who wrote the First Amendment used the phrase "separation of chruch and state" repeatedly and consistently when they were ask to explain what they meant when they said that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It is true that this exact phrase is not found in the Constitution, but to dismiss its relevance is misguided at best, and deceptive at worst.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Just defending myself a little here.
"I don't really consider either of these to be propogandistic, but rather simply that they were documents intended for very different and specific audiences."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't copies of the Declaration circulated throughout the colonies as a way to get people to join the Revolution?
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Well, the Declaration was certianly widely circulated...it was distributed via pamphlets, published in many newspapers, and delivered in speeches in a variety of public venues (curches, public squares, etc.). But I think the desire for revolution was already pretty solidly established by that time.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
hmmmmm. I shall /::)
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I don't know I will look into it. Maybe Percivale knows.
You are truly grasping at straws and trying to explain away what is obviously a fact. This country was a christian nation not in the modern day sense of the word but they believed in God.
I will go on to show and prove that that is the case :)
...but to be honest (and I mean no disprespect) your comments thus far don't indicate to me that you are well versed enough in the history of this period to make your case effectively. So far, you have quoted a known fraud, and are clearly not familiar with the political philosophical contexts of the founding period. Hopefully, this will prove to be an opportunity for you to educate yourself, rather than simply regurginate false information that has been fed to you from historical revisionists such as Charles Barton. If you want to make the best case you can, I would suggest that you turn DIRECTLY to the source documents that you quote, rather than relying on the selectively edited sources that have informed you thus far. You will need to abandon the preconceptions of your modern beliefs, and look at the material objectively, and consider what the the founders meant from their point-of-view, rather than from yours.
Good luck.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Who the hell is Charles Barton?
I assure you that this has been most educational. I am not well versed but it has given me the opportunity to study more. For that I thank you. Percivale, you seem well versed to reivented history. I find what you have to say most interesting. Please keep reading and commenting. I enjoy the battle. I take no disrespect to your comments. I hope to become good friends and debate further :)
Doh! I am a total chod. I meant to say DAVID Barton. I apologize for the confusion.
David Barton is the original source for most of the material that you have presented.
Here is a thorough source that documents Barton's many deceptions...
The Barton Chronicles
percivale
-------------------------
"Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion...All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, wre[sic] it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people." ~ Republican Senator Arlen Specter
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If this nation isn't founded on Christian principles then why do all of the preambles of all of our states mention God Almighty.
Alabama 1901, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance, Establish this Constitution...
Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...
Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...
Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government...
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution...
Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution...
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy...
Maine 1820, Preamble. We, the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity...And imploring His aid and direction...
Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the UniverseIn the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution...
Minnesota 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings
Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...
Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodnessEstablish this Constitution...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...
Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedomEstablish this Constitution...
Nevada 1864, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience...
New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...
New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings...
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those
North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty...establish this...
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Rhode Island, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
South Carolina 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
Texas 1845, Preamble. We, the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God...
Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution...
Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties...establish this Constitution...
This is where I found this:
http://www.rjayco.com/preamble/
That is a complex question. First of all, it is important to remember that State Constitutions are not the documents on which our Country was founded. It is certainly true that at founding of our Great Nation, the individual States had a greater leeway to set their own standards within their individual borders. However, I would as that you note that the list you provided skips around pretty liberally in terms of the effective dates of the various peambles that it cites, and ignores the way that the Constitutions of various States have evolved. Some States had these religious references at one time, and later abandoned them. Others lacked these references, and later adopted them.
At the time of the founding, our nation was separating itself from a monarchy that had a State Religion, and which in fact required that the colonies enact certain religious language into their respective founding documents, and many (though not all) of those colonies actually had their own official religious sects. When we became our own Nation, however, our Constitution and Bill of Rights required that the new States disestablish their official religions, and that divestiture did not happen over night. Disestablishment was a process and as we still see even today, it was a process that was resisted by the ever power-hungry religious sects that even today continue (and sometimes suceed) to establish a tyranny over the citizens' rights of conscience.
Of our original 13 States, only four did not have a specifical religious establishment in their State Constitutions (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Rhode Island) at the time of the founding. The rest had significant religious tests imbedded in their Constitutions. And remember, the writing of the Constitution of the United States was not even completed until 1787, and not ratified (including the Bill of Rights) until 1788, and did not officially take effect until 1789. Prior to that, there was no Establishment Clause, and the States were still operating, more or less, under the same presuptions that had governed them previously, including the official inclusion of religious language in their documents.
It is also intersting to realize that despite what your selectively compiled list of constitutional preambles suggests, all of the early State did in fact disestablish the religious elements from their Constitutions, though some of the early States resisted that change for many years. Of the original 13, Massachussetts was the last to comply with the Consitutional requirement in 1833.
Of course, disestablishment has always been a controversial issue, and as we can see even today, there are stong elements of the citizenry who are not content to see their government behave in the religiously neutral context that the Constitution of the United States requires. And, States still have significantly more leeway when it comes to the construction of their individual Constitutions, and the contents of these has varied greatly over the years, reflecting the ebb and flow of opinion in their respective citizenries.
The fact remains that the Constitution of the United States, does not now nor has it EVER contained the kind of relgious appeal that you point to in the Constitutions of the States, and in fact was unique in its time because of that fact. You may point to all the State Constitutions that you wish, but the only Constitution that applies to ALL of us appeals to The People for its power, and not to "god."
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
They don't.
Here's NY's first constitution
http://www.montauk.com/history/seeds/charter.htm
Here's their current one
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/cons2004.pdf
And there are 2 others missing as well.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I really agree with you on this especially with Obama supporting gay marriage when I personally believe as a religious woman that one man is supposed to be married to one woman, hence how marriage was started in the first place before gay marriage came into the picture a few years back. Thanks for your post, this really helped me see why I wouldn't vote for Obama. Sorry to those who did or will vote for him.
Thanks for your comments :) I struggle with the issue of marriage. I one hand I don't really care because it doesn't affect me. On the other hand it is a moral issue.
You just gave me like eight solid reasons to vote Obama. When you say he is unpatriotic, you should actually say why you believe that. Anyone can just make a statement with nothing to back it up. And why is empathy bad?
I'm going back to Africa
AGAIN! It depends on what empathy means to him. I did say why I believe that you just didn't read the comments.
Please Go back to Africa!
You didn't actually put your definition of empathy in your blog though. That is what everyone responds to initially.
I'm going back to Africa
I wanted to apologize for telling you to go back to africa. That wasn't nice and I am sorry.
Should I put my definition of empathy in my blog?
It is my signature after all, although I think you misunderstand it. I think this blog would be improved if after every reason you gave why you didn't like Obama you also wrote a little about why you personally thought this. For example, after saying "he is pro-Choice", you should write why being pro-choice is a bad thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it's okay. I have a black gay friend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is a good idea.. Thank you :) Have a good weekend!
What do you mean when you say the "communist constitution?"
Regardless, I will simply refer you to the final authority charged with the task of interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Per the Supreme Court of the United States...
"At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." ~ Reynolds v. United States (1878)
To suggest that the term "separation of church and state" is not an appropriate turn of phrase in the consideration of the original intent of our founding fathers is authoritatively incorrect.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
WOW...so he obviously believes in everything
Oh whats wrong with being pro-abortion its the women's choice either way.
she made her choice to have sex.
Just because a women may have made a bad choice of having sex, that does not mean an unwanted child should suffer coming into this world when the mother may be icapable of taking care of him/her properly.
Liv Life Your Way
There are plenty of people in this world who would be more than glad to adopt a baby. It is mere propaganda to say that no one wants that baby and instead the mother chooses to kill that child. She doesn't know that her child could have a good life. She just doesn't want to deal with a mistake and it is something she will have to live with for the rest of her life. Abortion on the whole is a convient way to get away with murder! Convient for someone who doesn't want to be responsible.
It isn't a child. It's not even a baby. It's a fetus. It's a parasitic mass of tissue.
every component to make a human is in that as you call it "mass" It has been proven that a baby's life begins at conception. 9 out 10 times when a mother aborts her baby it's heart is already beating. It is a baby. It is a child. Abortion IS murder.
What do you mean when you say...?
I am not aware of any significant consensus among scientists that would agree with this comment in the context of this debate. To what resources are you referring when it says that this has been "proved?"
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Also here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
http://www.epm.org/articles/life_conception.html
http://www.prolife.com/life_begins.html
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/43/
Some of those look a little less than objective, and the first one stinks of quote mining (and bad quote mining at that, because it doesn't really support your view).
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Objective and qoute mining?? Bad quote mining?? I am showing some different articles that speak on the issue. They do support my view. Tthe Mayo clinic is a well respected organization. They support me on the point that I said, all the information to make a human being is there from the very beginning.
Calling an embryo a fetus or zygote is just stating a stage in every humans life just as every person is a zygote,embryo,fetus ,baby, toddler,youth,teen,adult. you have all the components that you had from the time of your conception. You have 23 chromasomes from your dad and 23 from your mom.
Here's some quotes from the first one:
""Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.""
""Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.""
""Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.""
The fact that it seems like quote mining is because, frankly, it's just a bunch of quotes. The fact that it seems like bad quote mining is because none of that stuff actually says that life begins at conception.
The second one:
Home page, clearly Christian sight. Not bad on it's own, but it seems to follow the fairly standard routine (not just of Christians) of bending science to fit it's needs.
Numero Trio:
Yeah, I'm going to trust the webpage of Pro-life America. That being said, I wouldn't trust a webpage called pro-choice america either.
And last:
"You are not authorized to view this resource.
You need to login." :(( Can't say much to that....
"You have 23 chromasomes from your dad and 23 from your mom."
Yeah, but ya don't have a brain, or a nervous system. When you do, that's where I draw the line.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I will grant you on the first one. As for the others. I forgot I am a memeber of the mayo clinic if that is the one you couldn't get into.
Was that sarcasim in your statement "Yeah, I'm going to trust the webpage of Pro-life America." ?
Your last statement made no sense to me.
"Yeah, but ya don't have a brain, or a nervous system. When you do, that's where I draw the line."
You are the SAME person you were when you were first conceived just in a different stage. What is so hard to grasp on that.
What is so wrong with Pro life? I ask you?
How about we make a law that says we have the CHOICE to murder someone if they inconvienced us..
That is what pro choice is.
I couldn't get into the physisians for life one.
Yes, that was sarcasm. As I said, I wouldn't trust pro-choice America either. Both are groups with political agendas.
"You are the SAME person you were when you were first conceived just in a different stage. What is so hard to grasp on that."
You are not the same person. You're not even a person. You are a potentiality of a human being that, through luck (or unluck) of the draw and a bunch of random things has become the person who you are today.
"What is so wrong with Pro life? I ask you?"
The fact that it wants to impose what it believes on a society that is full of people who disagree.
"How about we make a law that says we have the CHOICE to murder someone if they inconvienced us..
That is what pro choice is."
No, it's not. A living human being has rights under the constitution. A clump of cells that may one day become a human being does not.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
Several places.
here for one:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34210
Here: They talk about what information is there when a baby is conceived.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
Just wondering too. According to Pro choice,Pro Abortion people. If a baby isn't a baby while in the mother, who the hell cares whether a pregnant woman, drinks, smokes or uses drugs? But, she can kill the baby with out any cause for concern??
hmmm. Sounds hypocritical.
Just so you know, The Onion is a satirical "newsource."
Now, as for your Mayo Clinic link, what part of this makes you think that a from the moment of conception, a zygote/embryo/fetus is a "human person" in the scientific or legal sense of the word? This source seems to me to suggest that the heart doesn't begin beating until the fifth week, and the brain doesn't really develop until at least the tenth, which would suggest to me that even by the most generous of the scientific standard of defining of independent life, an early stage developing zygote or embryo certainly doesn't qualify.
Very few scientists in any of the relevant fields would categorize a zygote or early-stage embryo as a "human person," and even fewer legal scholars would support the position you suggest.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
:)) You know the onion is a satirical tabloid paper?
And, here's the difference. A woman drinking and smoking, but not having and abortion, is someone who is planning on having the baby, but is already being so irresponsible that she doesn't take into account the possibility of still-birth or major birth defects. ;'(
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I think that is bull. Your excuses are ridiculous and you obviously are so closed minded that you cannot see anything but what you want to. At least I look at sources you give to me.
No need to get angry. Since I'm not sure what you're responding to, I'll act as if you're responding to it all.
The Onion is a satirical paper. Look it up. It's hysterical. Or, rather than look it up, here's the link. http://www.theonion.com/content/index
I think it is wrong to smoke and drink while pregnant if you intend to have the baby because it reveals you as ignorant or reckless. If you are going to get an abortion, that is a decision that the person made. So, they aren't doing something that's putting a live child at risk, whereas smoking and drinking are.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft
I am not angry. It just cracks me up that you think you are making some sort of arguement. I didn't know that about the Onion. I will look it up after I am done here.
On one hand it's a baby and alive if she is going to keep it. therefore she should take care of it. By not doing things that affect the baby.
On the other it's not a baby and alive if she is going to kill it so she doesn't need to take care of it. So eat drink do drugs and be merry for tomorrow it dies!
Your arguement is a double standard.
??????
My argument is applying different standards to different situations. I approve of neither situation, but am inclined to come down harder on the pregnant woman who recklessly and irresponsibly endangers the life of a child that she intends to give birth to, even if she intends to give it up for adoption. I am less critical (in most circumstances) of the woman who says 'I can't have this baby' and makes a difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy.
"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft