Just One More Gripe

[analog]

Nudie -

"City Slickers" and "Hillbillies" have about equal regard for one another's lifestyles.

I dont think any group or region has cornered the market on small mindedness. That's an individual thing one simply outgrows, with any luck.

Interesting topic, xenophobia.....

[haggis]

"I'm an American by birth and a Southener by the grace of God"


RC,
"When you read it, you get the distinct impression that they wanted the president to interdict very little personal judgement."

Interesting idea, can you expand on it?

The presidents were pretty much equal to Congress until the LBJ presidency which began the era of "imperial presidency" that exists today.

I would certainly support a return to a more equal footing between the Adminstration and Legislatives and would certainly appreciate a "wake up" call to the Supreme Court concerning their role in interpreting the laws of the U.S.

[Shapley]

Haggis,

RE: The Supreme Court,

When John Kerry said that he would select judges that would interpret the Constitution in accordance with the laws, I shuddered.

I would expect it to be the other way around.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by analog:
Interesting topic, xenophobia.....

Yeah, I especially like the tinkly sound they make.

[The Great Carouser]

Originally posted by Shapley:
Haggis,

RE: The Supreme Court,

When John Kerry said that he would select judges that would interpret the Constitution in accordance with the laws, I shuddered.

I would expect it to be the other way around.

V/R

Shapley

You mean, like it has been since Rehnquist was appointed?

[RC]

Haggis

RC,
"When you read it, you get the distinct impression that they wanted the president to interdict very little personal judgement."

Interesting idea, can you expand on it?

I contemplated how best to answer this and here is what I choose instead:

Some of you folks, apparently many, are standing perilously close to contributing to the dissolution of what used to be a practical, noble, government.

We have less than ten days. In that amount of time I could not possibly regergitate on the BBB what you should have learned on your own.

Urgent reading material: The Constitution of the United States of America, The Declaratoin of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, To Spit Against the Wind, a biography of Thomas Jeffereson, Freedom for All

If you believe that homosexuality should be addressed by the constitution of the United States of America, you either do not understand the document or you do not subscribe to it.

If you believe the federal government would be doing a justice by establishing good christian morals for our citizens, you either don't understand the US Constitution or you do not subscribe to it.

If you thought the Patriot Act was a good thing, you understand neither the Patriot Act nor the US Constitution, OR, you do not subscribe to the constitution.

There is a greater threat to this country than radical Islamists and that is the fundamentalist Christian sitting in the White House.

We have spent 228 years proving that our country and our established form of government can withstand war, disease, poverty and total economic chaos, bad decisions, and ludicrous laws. Not just withstand, thrive!

THIS time, the attack comes from the inside and strikes directly at the epicenter - right to the heart of the US Constitution.

If Bush is re-elected, we cannot win the war in Iraq nor the war on terror because WE THE PEOPLE simply won't exist anymore. What are your priorities, God, Country, Family? Then you can't vote for Bush who does not protect your beliefs your country protect your family and person. It is all farce.

Haggis once told me that it would be impossible for Bush to do too much damage in 8 short years - I beg to differ. I don't lie awake at night worrying about terrorism anymore, I lie awake worrying George Bush will be in the White House this time next year.

[NudewigVonB]

To ALL,

Sorry, guess I was riled up and in a grouchy mood when I was typing on two keyboards at once (stereo).

I apologize to all the fine southern ladies and gentleman! I've lived in the south myself a number of years (Texas A&M, gig-em-Aggies), Charleston, SC, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Atlanta, and have certainly seen a diverse range of opinions and personalities. However, in responding to Serenity, I did want to express my opinion that such a thing as a Bible Belt does exist (though it may not be as sharply defined as in the past), and that the South does reflect in its voting patterns now a strong Republican showing stemming from a preference for conservative values. I suspect that in many cases these are driven from a religious perspective but that's certainly not a prerequisite.

I actually liked living in the south-- weather and people warm and friendly for the most part (there I go stereotyping again), and the pace of life pleasantly slower than here in the mid-Atlantic or California, where I spent the rest of my life. The South also has lots of rural areas and deserted sandy beaches where one can enjoy life au naturale. In fact, as soon as the Missus retires, we're heading back to the Charleston area to immerse ourselves in Southern Culture once again.

So shame on me!! I do so try to take the high road in life, but find myself slipping now and then.

[eaphil]

NudewigVonB,

Thanks. Glad to read that you are familiar with and appreciative of so many good places and good people of the South. No one is more aware of our problems than those of us who live here. We have work to do, but it's impossible for me to ignore the changes and progress that have been made in my lifetime.

BTW, after I responded to your post, I remembered that the last two Democrat presidents were from small towns in the South -- Plains, Ga., and Hope, Ark. And both were Southern Baptists (though the Baptists blamed the Methodists for electing them ).

Ed

<small>[ 10-13-2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: eaphil ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

Nude,
Very eloquent!

We all tend to <ahem> slip now and then. . .we just get caught up in what we're trying to get across.

[Shapley]

RC,

I'm sorry, but President Bush, alone or with the consent of Congress, cannot alter the Constitution of the United States. The Patriot act does not do that, nor do any of his religious beliefs.

The Constitution says no religious test shall be administered, yet that appears to be what you are doing. The term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, much to the dismay of those who wish it. The freedom to freely exercise religion, however, is supported by the Constitution.

I feared Bill Clinton much the same way you fear George W. Bush. The country survived eight years of clinton, (even if the second amendment took a few hits!), and it will survive four more of President Bush.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

I'm sorry, but President Bush, alone or with the consent of Congress, cannot alter the Constitution of the United States.

I did NOT say he could. President Bush alone did not get into the White House - he had to convince YOU to vote for him. Just like he is attempting to convince YOU that the constitution should be altered.
Haggis has commented on the number of times the Constitution has been amended, how many of those amendments have happened in his lifetime, and what a danger that is. You, as I recall, stood by his side in agreement.
Yet, you would vote for a man who has no reservations in amending the constitution for something as inconsequential as homosexuality.

The term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, much to the dismay of those who wish it. The freedom to freely exercise religion, however, is supported by the Constitution.

Where DOES that term come from Shap? It is NOT written in the constitution - so, was this coined from some liberal rant?

The Bill of Rights specifically grants freedom of religion which is an indication that it was a very important topic. Yet, there was not an establishment of one religion or the other as thee religion (as it had been in England). Why?

"NO religious test shall apply", why not? Why did they even bother to address this? To protect the people from the bias of one religion over another. A seperation of the church from the state in deference to the people it served.

The founding fathers left the decision of establishing a religion to each state, as you have said yourself, as long as it did not infringe on the supreme rights granted by the constitution.

The Constitution says no religious test shall be administered, yet that appears to be what you are doing.

The test that applies to the president of the United States, is that which ensures the individual freedoms granted by the constitution. Can Bush govern the country without imposing HIS religious bias?
NOT!
As an individual, more power to Bush and all other citizens in the free practice of your faith.

[haggis]

” There is a greater threat to this country than radical Islamists and that is the fundamentalist Christian sitting in the White House.

We have spent 228 years proving that our country and our established form of government can withstand war, disease, poverty and total economic chaos, bad decisions, and ludicrous laws. Not just withstand, thrive!

THIS time, the attack comes from the inside and strikes directly at the epicenter - right to the heart of the US Constitution.

If Bush is re-elected, we cannot win the war in Iraq nor the war on terror because WE THE PEOPLE simply won't exist anymore. What are your priorities, God, Country, Family? Then you can't vote for Bush who does not protect your beliefs your country protect your family and person. It is all farce.”

RC,

I've spent 30+ of my 56 years studying the Constitution and the other documents, including some you haven't named. All of them are literally within inches of me as I type this. I’ve read more biographies about Jefferson than the average person, including all six volumes of Malone’s “Jefferson and His Time.” More importantly, I’ve read biographies about Jackson, important now because we are living in a Jacksonian time, not a Jeffersonian one

I’ll go so far as to claim that I am as knowledgeable of those documents and their intent and the history of America, including the Patriot Act, as any here, including Barfle, Shapley and Selma.

I’ve stated here before that Kerry wouldn’t be a bad president, just that I think Bush would be better

[minor hissy tirade] Although you have to wonder if a Republican candidate who was a self confessed war criminal would have gotten as far in the electoral process, but I guess the Dems have to go with what they got [/minor hissy tirade]

I believe Kerry is the wrong man and you believe Bush ” is the fundamentalist Christian sitting in the White House” planning attacks ”right to the heart of the US Constitution.”

I think Kerry is wrong and you, apparently, think Bush is evil.

I submit to you that the plane of our discussions is no longer level and the skew is such as to preclude any common points of reference vital to honest debate and discussion; our thoughts have become so disparate that I believe to continue in this vein would be pointless.

As an aside, people who fear Christians, fundamental or otherwise, more than radical Islam perplexes me. Some Christians might not understand or like homosexuals but they don’t endorse state sponsored murder of them.

And yes, the people who don’t like President Bush will be greatly relieved in 2008 when the Constitution proves, again, to stronger than any man or woman’s attempts to weaken it, not that I think Bush is doing that.

You ”lie awake worrying George Bush will be in the White House this time next year” whereas I'm relieved that he will be.

I wish you well and urge you to stay involved in the security issues at your children’s school.

[Shapley]

RC,

The term "seperation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in support of the Constitution.

President Bush has addressed homosexuality within the context of the Constitution only because it has been brought before the courts. Because the constitution requires each state to grant "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states, it is believed that the courts will compel all states to accept homosexual marriages that are legally performed in any state. Many states are not waiting for a Constitutional amendment, and are passing legal definitions at the state constitutional level, which I support. The state of Missouri has recently passed just such a provision.

President Bush didn't start this fight, he has just weighed in, in my opinion wrongly, with his proposal to end it. I personally don't care if he supports such an amendment or not, because he alone cannot make it happen. Nor does he have any magical power to make the electorate believe support it. If the amendment is ratified, it will be because a large number of people (more than will be needed to elect President Bush to office) believed it was needed. If that is the case, then perhaps it was me that was wrong on the necessity of such an amendment. I'm willing to accept that. It won't be the end of the world.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

As an aside, people who fear Christians, fundamental or otherwise, more than radical Islam perplexes me .

I do not fear Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, I fear THEE fundamentalist who weilds the power to impose his values on you and I and has stated quite openly that he is not concerned in doing so.

You have made many assumptions about me since I have been posting on the BBB.
That I am a "liberal", rarely.
That I am a democrat, I am not.
That I use quotes from 501's, I did not.
That I would underestimate the threat of terrorism, I do not.
That I do not own or understand guns, I'm quite proficient.
That I do not understand economics, it happens to be a specialty.
And now, that I fear religion. This last is in fact our critical departure. It represents a charachterization incredibly false and toxic.
It is in fact my specific reverence for religious freedom which motivates my distrust of Bush. This is the opposite of what you assume.

[OperaTenor]

History if chock full of examples where social injustice to the extent of genocide has ocurred whenever government adopted a theology as policy. A noted example is the Spanish Inquisition.

I like to believe I am an ardent Christian, and try to follow Christ's example. That being said, I do not want my government to endorse ANY particular religion or theology. They may happen to pick the one I'm not a subscriber of, then come to persecute ME!

Get it?

Freedom of religion has to be freedom of ALL religion. That cannot happen without clear separation of church and state.

[larnett]

It is very sad to come to this forum and read the anti-Christian bigotry posted by Shostakovich, RC and NedewigVonB. Webster defines bigotry as intoerance or prejudice. It defines a prejudice as "suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of ther races, creedss, regions, occupations, etc." Clearly these three posters have a prejudice against Christians because they address them as a broad group. Each of the three has make emotional unsupportable statements, painting with a broad brush the dangers of allowing the same to have a place in government. They disregard the individuals, and the right of the individuals to have an opinion and participate in the governmmental process. They work to create the very environment they argue against.

[Shapley]

odetojoy,

Welcome to the forum!

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

odetojoy,

Hello to you too!

I do not fear Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, I fear THEE fundamentalist who weilds the power to impose his values on you and I

It is in fact my specific reverence for religious freedom which motivates my distrust of Bush.

As an individual, more power to Bush and all other citizens in the free practice of your faith.

How you figured I was anti anything but Bush as president, I do not know.

What is very sad is that there has to be ONE who personifies exactly the stereotype to which Nudewig alluded and for which he later apologized very graciously.

[Marye]

Odetojoy,

With all due respect, if you knew Shostakovich or RC you would know them to be good and honest people as is everyone who posts on this board. In all the posting I have read I have never felt anyone was bigoted or prejudiced. Misguided maybe , but always respectful.

[OperaTenor]

Hi odetojoy,

Don't mean to add to the pouncing, BUT...

Perhaps you should read the posts you refer to more carefully. I don't get the impression any of the individuals you cite have got it in for any religion, let alone Christianity. They may have made undue generalizations at one time or another, but who here hasn't? They have also shown they none too proud to stand corrected, if need be.

(Hey, I know you guys can speak for yourselves, but, gotta keep that post count up ya know.....oops, wrong thread.)