But I too am caught up in the monumental importance of the day, so out of respect for the president-elect, who will be sworn in today, I am posting the new president's official White House portrait:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Barack Obama: 44th President of the United States
Considering how President-elect Barack Obama has strained the comparisons between himself and Abraham Lincoln, I'm tempted to post a picture of "The Audacity of the Dope."
But I too am caught up in the monumental importance of the day, so out of respect for the president-elect, who will be sworn in today, I am posting the new president's official White House portrait:
But I too am caught up in the monumental importance of the day, so out of respect for the president-elect, who will be sworn in today, I am posting the new president's official White House portrait:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
I opened the front page of our local paper, the Houston Chronicle, and couldn't believe it. It's a propaganda sheet today: a giant picture of Obama; the headline "A Day for Change" over the presidential oath, and tiny pictures of the Leader's predecessors.
The page includes a gushing article about the "First Black President" that hails the rise of a "new generation" "more prone to problem solving than to ideological conflict."
Hail, Caesar.
While I voted for McCain given Obama's utter lack of experience, I nonetheless include Obama in my prayers, as I have done for every other president. This position is the toughest one on the planet, and I occasionally remember to pray for the President's health, that he would feel peace, and that his decisions would be ones that would lead our nation in the right direction.
I cannot deny the monumental significance Obama's election to the Presidency has on our country's history and society. I do pray that his amazing story is one that will help bring about unity, heal our nation's racist divisions, and lift up those who continue to struggle under racism's weight. I also pray that this will inspire other nations to come to grips with their societal problems.
Our nation remains one where a person truly can achieve his or her dreams. Many other countries have societies embroiled in classism (Europe included), and even though we are criticized for being "backwards" and poorly educated (supposedly), we nevertheless remain free, powerful, and the world leader.
God bless Obama! God bless America!
We the people...
Watching the news this morning, I am amazed and overwhelmed by the mass of humanity turning out in D.C. It is awe inspiring to say the least.
What is also amazing is the outpouring of Good Will, from Bush on down. (A classy handover by Bush, perhaps the classiest thing he's done as pres.)
This is truly one of the most historic days in American presidential history. As one who studies political science, I'm glad you are finally giving your grudging "respect" Donald, which I suspect will all be over come tomorrow. But thanks for putting down your partisan hate for today.
As America needs true leadership, my only hope is that those on the right (sorry, I mean the 25%), who are filled with so much unmitigated hate and impious animosity towards Obama, a man who has not even taken his oath as I write this, will at least let the man take office and see if he can turn this country around.
My only hope is that Obama can lead with a clear vision, with the support of all Americans in these difficult times, and that he doesn't suffer from the Clinton era derangement from the right.
I've gotten ten cases of "I told you so" political greeting cards in the mail today. Here's hoping that tim and ducky and respac3 will leave mailing addresses when things start going over the cliff.
Excuse me while I finish getting drunk.
Come on Greywolfe, that was an amazing speech.
I take it you are celebrating and toasting while you get drunk!
Peace everyone. This is a fine, fine day.
Tim, success as President will require President Obama to exhibit a moral clarity of such an absolute nature that you and your fellow secular-progressives will be thoroughly pissed off before it's over.
Nothing less will suffice. As I have said before, his success will be in proportion to how much he deviates from the campaign rhetoric that led you to support him.
Get off your high horse, for a little humility is in order for y'all, considering that we remember the hatred that dogged President Bush from the first yelp of "selected, not elected".
We know the secular definition of "hate" ... principled, resolute opposition to the secular-progressive agenda ... as well as the secular-progressive definition of "bipartisanship" ... conservative surrender to faith in your "obviously superior" intellects.
Always remember ... a man, and the government established by him, has gotta know their limitations, if they are to truly succeed.
Don't worry Rich, I am humbled by this day.
I just wish you and your ilk would be too, instead of spilling your endless Bill O' talking points.
Secular progressives indeed. If ever there was a tired, cliched and ridiculous label, it was that one. Put it down, it's over it's tired and done.
I saw a million American flags today, I saw a million heads bowed in prayer, I saw Pastor Warren deliver a very good invocation...
Get on board, open your hearts and minds and be a celebrate America today.
THE OBAMANATION has begun. Hope and Change, more like Bull and Dung.
Welcome to the 3rd World-2009 style.
Don: you showed a modicum of class today and I comend you for it.
El Jefe, Greywolfe, Rich and Pat: you also showed how much class you each have. I can actually feel you clinging to your guns and religion right now. I'm sure you all feel like losers today but I think America won and I can't wipe this damn smile off my face. Enjoy, fellas.
Tim: high five, amigo!
Benediction at Obama 's inauguration by Rev. Joseph Lowery:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen."
Bleh.
Tim, you are one arrogant individual. Donald should put down his "partisan hate" for today? When it comes to partisan hate you Democrats are in a class by yourself. Try reading Ann Coulter's "Slander" or Michelle Malkin's "Unhinged"; Democrats have openly wished for a Bush assassintation (and made films depicting it); have hoped for an early death for Clarence Thomas, and a thousand other similar examples.
And where do you get off calling us "your ilk?"
You are more than arrogant, you are extremely immature. You act as if your profound ignorance of history, economics and politics were a badge of honor. It isn't.
As for you JBW, who are the losers remains to be seen. Perhaps it will be the American people.
My students were excited and awed by the transfer of power. I truly hope that Obama governs from the middle, if not, we're in for a long four years.
And to the liberals who come here, if you don't like the way Obama is getting treated, maybe you should take a long look in the mirror over how Bush was treated by the left for the last 8 years, or how Palin was treated during the election.
What comes around goes around.
"El Jefe, Greywolfe, Rich and Pat: you also showed how much class you each have."
Class, you mean like the class the liberal trash in D.C. showed when they booed President Bush walking up to the platform this morning? Why should I show any more "class" then the idiots you walk lock-stepped with? See, the difference is, I don't have a problem fighting any fight with the same rules the other side uses.
I don't remember the left EVER giving Bush his due respect.
JBW: you pissed off a bunch of right wingers and I commend you for that. It reminds me of the goodwill Stogie's friend Ann Coulter showed when she called John Edwards a fag. Yes. The class shown by the heroes of the right wing is a true testament to their adherence to exceptionalism.
Wipe your feet before you go inside Pat (Bull and dung lady) Houseworth. Classy gal.
And where do you get off calling us "your ilk?"
Damn that drinkin' & computing...
My keyboard & monitor were covered in soda... It was at least a two-sheeter...
(That one's definitely being added to the "favorite comments file," though...)
((If you need it explained, you won't get it even when it is...))
I'm pretty sure Tim was offering Donald a compliment, Stogie, backhanded though it may've been...
The message to take away is, we think Donald showed class today by posting this message, & by refraining from using the PeCube pic. In some circles, telling someone they showed class is a good thing... ...but keep arguing about it, if you feel you must.
"...calling us 'your ilk.'"
Thanks, Stogie... My monitor was gettin' a little grimy, anyway.
"Brown can stick around. The Yellow can mellow. The Red Man can get ahead man. And White can do what's right."
--Prayer from old black racist radical black guy.
How fitting for this inaugural event. And how unsurprising considering this is Obama's.
I was proud, happy, and I admit a little emotional until that happened. Especially when I saw Obama smirk and nod his head at the comment. Pathetic and tasteless on them all.
I really could care less from this point out. I'm sick of forcefully being optimistic when this crap is always on the surface. He should have just brought back Jeremiah Wright. This is only a taste of things to come and I hope the many people who helped to send him to office in the hopes of change will see that this is a change for the worse.
Pathetic Mr. President...Very pathetic. You deserve in every way all the hate that was shown to President Bush.
Jason:
I agree that we're far closer to the day when all those things Lowery said will be fully realized than his words seemed to indicate, but I'm pretty sure the smiles & nods were the result of people (including Obama) recognizing those words as lyrics to a blues song from the 1940's.
YouTube - Big Bill Broonzy - "Black, Brown and White"
It was the day after MLK's birthday, the day we're swearing in the first black President, and the guy talking was a civil rights leader, and lived through many days when those words were far less true.
Believe as you wish, of course, but I see no reason not to cut the guy a little bit of slack, myself... But then, I smiled when I recognized the where those words were from, too...
I watched most of the inauguration today. I caught the first part of Obama's speech. I'm not one much for watching speeches by anybody, preferring to read the text.
I liked the pomp and circumstance, and seeing who was in the crowd, as it's always fun to ID people of both parties.
Lastly, I too decided to resist temptation today and not criticize any of the Obamamania or delve into the particulars of his speech or anything like that.
Let the Democrats have their day. Obama won fair and square. Tomorrow we'll get back to blogging as usual.
Stogie: perhaps it will but for now I have hope.
VAG: I don't think that Bush or Palin deserved all of the abuse they received but I do think they deserved a lot of the criticism. I don't claim that all liberals always see the difference but this one tries to.
Greywolfe: nobody is saying that you have to act or speak with any amount of class at all; in fact, I assume that you're more entertaining when you don't. Your anathema to the idea is certainly a testament to your character however.
Those people shouldn't have booed Bush today and he was granted respect from the left when he deserved it; I suspect from what you've said here before and on your site that you just think he was worthy of it on many more occasions than most of us did, and your failure to remember (or even acknowledge) this makes it no less true.
And not having a problem "fighting any fight with the same rules the other side uses" sounds a bit like the phrase "embracing the tactics of our enemies". Let me guess: you dig waterboarding and torture, right? How about crazy religious suicide bombing, using planes filled with civilians as missiles and women and children as shields for munitions? There's that character thing I was talking about.
Now of course I don't think you embrace these tactics, I think that you're just a pissed off trucker in a funny hat, and a sore loser. Here's some free advice: stop writing things about using "the same rules the other side uses" and people will take you more seriously.
This is the United States of America. We were founded on the ideal of doing things better and cleaner than the effete assholes we rebelled against so many years ago and it's something we need to get back to as we fight these islamist assholes now. Listen to the man's speech from earlier today; he knows this.
T101: thanks, brother. High five to you today as well.
I am optimistic, moreso.
The President did fine today. Same with Warren.
How about Cheney in the wheelchair???(Symbolic of?)
Personally, I'm glad to see GW. go.
Not for what you guys might think either!
Over the last 16 years, the only two from the "Boomer " Generation that led this nation.
Both failed to get this Nation into the 21st century on the Right foot.
I believe both Clinton and GW were like Corsican Brothers, not seperate, but more like bookends containing an era of American Politics and policy at the change of the century. Neither quite capable. So they pandered instead.
As children of the "Greatest Generation" they were both spoiled, ill-equipped to lead, and minions of Division.....truly the most disasterous generation to be produced so far.... IMHO
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject at some point Professor. I think history will begin too show that one cant judge GW without judging Clinton for an overalll understanding.....and that it was a combined failure that led to todays activities.
Cheers
God Bless
First: this is a monumental day and puts to shame those Poverty and Race Pimps who shameless decry that America is comprised of sheet-wearing racists. A black man is president; the wrong black man, but a black nevertheless. Those whose lives revolve solely around race: STFU.
Second: for a man whose campaign rhetoric has consisted predominantly of positivism, this speech, though adequate, was stellar in its LACK of positivism. And positivism is precisely WHAT the country needs.
Third: for those Leftists and Socialists disappointed when Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink were not appointed to the Obama cabinet, buck up: Obama is about to go ever MORE centrist.
Fourth: why? He is now and has recently been privy to the PDB, the Presidents Daily Brief, a compendium of intelligence reports presented to the US president every morning, culled from multiple intelligence sources. Obama is now aware of the great dangers lurking in this world and the truths that exist with this reality.
Leftists and Socialists: Buyers' Remorse, anyone?
Of course, I could be entirely psychotic.
BZ
BZ, first: this is indeed a monumental day and those whose lives revolve around race do indeed need to STFU, as you cutely abbreviated. But just because a black man is president doesn't mean that we don't still have many hurdles to overcome before we're a truly fair and equal society.
Second: Obama's campaign rhetoric was positive and inspiring and it got many people to vote to put him in charge. Now that he is however, he's made it clear that now is the time for hard work, not grand promises. Right now America needs a leader who is thoughtful and realistic, someone who asks us to save and sacrifice rather than that we should just go shopping.
Third and fourth: as I've written here many times, Obama has never been the commie leftist the right tried to paint him as during the election; his ideas and way of thinking have always been measured and pragmatic. To suggest that he's now suddenly going centrist because he was granted a glimpse into W's troubling world as president is disingenuous and tone deaf.
And yes, I'd say that it's entirely possible you could be psychotic. Don't worry, happens to the best of us.
cracker: I've just written a post on exactly this subject over at Brain Rage; drop by if you feel so inclined.
donald, i just stopped over to say the same as you...guvung my very best wishes for this countrys future!!
JBW, I think I'll take your comments in reverse order.
"This is the United States of America. We were founded on the ideal of doing things better and cleaner than the effete assholes we rebelled against so many years ago and it's something we need to get back to as we fight these islamist assholes now. Listen to the man's speech from earlier today; he knows this."
In the first place, you're right, when this country was founded, it was founded to give us a better place to be free to worship. In winning our freedom we fought smarter than the British and beat them back.
Now as for waterboarding and torture. Waterboarding, yes. Torture, not so much. Depends on how bad we need info and what's at stake. I have no sympathy for terrorists that hide behind women and children and strike from hiding from mosques. I watched the Daniel Bird murder many times, so I have no remorse for anything done to Islamic militants. They have made themselves subhumans in their behavior and I would treat them as such.
And finally, your comment in relation to my character. What in the hell do you know of my character? I work hard every day. I pay my dues each day. I have paid my dues in service to my country during Desert Storm and am proud of the Christian heritage of this country. I'm not perfect, but I have beliefs that I am willing to fight and die for, other than what makes me feel good. My moral compass doesn't float around. Everything is either right or wrong. Good or Evil. There is no middle ground.
I do not subscribe to the liberal ideology of moral equivelancy, and because of that, you believe that there is something wrong with my character? Understand me. To protect my country I can watch every other place burn. America is that important to me. I would die to protect your right to say that I'm a monster because of what I'm willing to do to protect you.
But I am not willing to be polite just because some idiot was successful in duping a lot of other idiots into putting him in office. He has proved by action and deed that he has no moral compass. He is a construct of the socialists and Marxists that he has been in bed with for his political career. I'd respect him more if he showed any class at all. But all he and his wife have shown is their disdain for this nation and its foundations.
Greywolfe, and others:
OK, so Obama duped the majority of the country, with proposals such as fixing the healthcare system. Now, every time I mention that this is something I too support, and that it is a good idea, I get slammed down. I am called stupid, ignorant, etc.
Only one thing. You know who else has universal coverage?
That would be Israel. (At a cheaper rate per capita than we have too.)
So does that make them some sort of socialist Satan?
Tim, the model that your beloved Dems have constantly tried to model their reforms on is based on European models. Every nation in Europe that uses socialist healthcare policies has a net deficit on their costs.
I have no idea what Israel is doing that the Europeans aren't but I doubt that Barry will even look at it as a model. Incidentally, there's only a little over 7 million Israelis in Israel, so I imagine that their healthcare costs are much different than ours at 303.8 million people. 12 to 15 million of those being illegal aliens. In case you are math deficient, that means that we have twice the number of illegal aliens than Israel has people.
The comparison you try to make is apples and oranges.
Greywolfe: Please don't take offense at this, but your attitude is exactly what we as Americans are trying to move on from.
Can't work, won't work, don't even try.
Your decade is over mate.
Tim, don't use "we americans" so glibly. Liberals don't make up a majority. You only had the majority that turned out in November.
For the rest of your comment, I'll take it as a badge of honor, not that you'd understand that ideal, to be considered nothing like you.
Many times in the recent past you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of history, and so you have no concept of what you and yours have put at stake. The only thing more tiring than your glib remarks that contain no substance, is your inability to learn from your betters. 'Nuff said, I consider the source, and move on.
Yes, Greywolfe. Like the time you demonstrated your ignorance as to what a Texas governor can or can't do in regard to commuting death sentences. Please.
There is a reason why America has moved on, and conservatives like yourself are still harping on about nothing. You are living in the past, anticipating the rapture. Meanwhile, we have lives to lead.
But please, make a note of my historical inaccuracies and let me know.
Greywolfe, I think I'll take your responses to my comments in a completely random order:
I don't know nor have I ever claimed to know any more about your character than I have gleaned from what you've written on this blog and your own. You lamented that several people you know were being jerks to you and then stated that you hoped to have the chance to be a jerk yourself to several other different people who frequent this blog. I commented that you lacked class because of this and you replied that you shouldn't have to display any more class than a bunch of "idiots", adding that the difference (I'm not sure what you were comparing there; your difference from myself? If so, thanks) was that you had no problem acting like those idiots.
I replied that you are under no obligation to display class but commented that your vehement unwillingness to do so said something about your character. Now I never said that what it said about you was something negative but you obviously took it that way (it's how I meant it) and actually where I grew up having class and using good manners are seen as positive, character-building attributes. Perhaps you were raised differently and as you said: you're not perfect.
I don't need you to tell me I'm right when I talk about America because I already know I am; in the future you can just say that you agree with me. Of course if you had done this then you would have denied yourself an opportunity to say something wrong about America: some of the original colonies were founded as places to be free to worship; this country was founded as a place to be free, regardless of one's desire to worship or not. I understand that being really into your religion sometimes makes it hard to remember the fact that not everyone is like you on this score and I forgive you for it (wow, how Christ-like of me).
Black or white, right or wrong, no middle ground worldview, huh? No wonder you liked W so much. You and my five year old niece would probably really get along: she sees very little nuance in the world too, but I'm pretty sure she'll grow out of it and become a much better critical thinker as she matures intellectually. On a side note, I'm curious: what would you do if you were given the power to abort Hitler? Would your head spin around first or just explode right away?
As to waterboarding and torture, I believe that the former is the latter; you obviously do not. Ignoring that difference, I never asked if you have sympathy for terrorists and Islamic militants or remorse for anything done to them. You stated that you "don't have a problem fighting any fight with the same rules the other side uses", so I asked if you had a problem fighting by the rules that those terrorists and Islamic militants use.
So tell us: would you commit the same horrific acts as those we fight if it meant winning? You've stated that you would do pretty much anything to protect America, would you fly an airliner of innocent Iranians into a tall building in downtown Tehran? Would you strap dynamite to women and children and detonate them in a crowded market to save America? Again, would you abort a baby? Just one baby, to protect all 288.8-303.8 million of us (giving you the option of not protecting any of the illegal immigrants)?
I find it funny that you've admonished me and dismissed what I've said in the past because I used a few curse words to express myself yet you apply the term "idiot" to people like it's your signature move. Again, where I grew up cursing was not nearly as bad as calling people names and hurling personal insults but as I said, maybe you were raised differently. The rest of your remarks about Obama and his wife are standard right wing boilerplate; I would assume that a room containing a million conservative monkeys with a million typewriters would eventually cover the same ground in a relatively short period of time.
Man, it's hard to keep a consistent message fisking someone in random order. So I guess it's back to you now: oh, oh, start your reply with "Once again, JBW has proven his ignorance about..." I love that one and it makes you sound like you really know what you're talking about.
Respect for the 666 beast?? Hmmmm.
Anyway, here's the response of Kenya for their new God and Savior:
Thousands gathered in the narrow dirt alleys and dusty clearings of the slum to enjoy the moment, chanting “Yes we can”. Hush fell only when the tiny television set in the corner of the ramshackle bar room filled with the distinctive features of America’s 44th President.
"“This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?” If Barack Obama’s spin doctors have been trying to lower expectations since his election victory, the message clearly has not reached the land of his father.
Millions of people around the country thronged giant TV screens or crammed into bars to watch the inauguration of a man viewed as Kenya’s best hope of a prosperous and happy future. "
http://www.puma08.com/2009/01/20/in-kenya-barack-obama-is-jesus/
What brings on God's "full wrath"?? God is a jealous God who will not tolerate any people having any false God before Him. He will remove Himself and ALL His protection, provision, and blessing when people worship someone in place of Him. God will leave them to their own devices without His aid. God will, just by departing, deliver them to Satan for destruction... because they wanted to worship... someone else. That's what's going to happen in the days to come.
Furthermore, they're worshipping Obama out of the love of money. They think he can just "make them rich". That's the strong delusion that Castro and other socialist leaders throughout history have deceived the people, who they later enslaved and impoverished, with.
Get ready to go through a Great Depression and the Great Tribulation. The world is worshipping... Obama... in place of Jesus. Appalling and disgusting and, imo, he should be CENSURED - not respected. Hated because good hates evil. I hate him. Which means I reject him fully and completely because I love God.
Grace.
Love good, hate evil - or practise moral equivalance and become evil in one's actions. Those are the choices. Obama is sheer evil. He must be hated to love good and love God. Bottom-line from my point of view. He must be completely rejected to remain under God's Spirit from my pov. I'm standing for America... and will birth the new nation. God's Spirit is upon me. I hate, thus fully reject, Obama. That's how to stand in the days to come.
I'm going to further clarify. It's not an "emotion" of hate. It's full and complete and total separation and rejection. It's censure. It's releasing a person emotionally. The Holy Spirit will not TOUCH Obama. He has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. The Bible says at a certain point to no longer pray for people. Obama is one of these - I say by the Spirit - having blasphemed, imo, the Holy Spirit. "Love your enemies"?? Ummmm... towards Obama... he is like the Pharisees who Jesus called a generation of vipers who could not be saved from the times that were to come. What many Christians practise is not "agape" - it's soulish codependency. I'm not "wrong" to fully reject and completely separate from a dead man who has committed the sin unto death and to have ZERO emotional bond with him. The Holy Spirit will not touch him. Many Christians are striving in the flesh. I'll drop it, but people do not understand deeper things of the Spirit sometimes as they are soulish and think "love" is their emotions out of the flesh rather than the agape of the Spirit. I leave this man to his destruction. He has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. People don't understand these deeper things sometimes. Enough said. No one falsely preach soulish "love of this world" in place of agape. The Spirit will not touch him. He has blasphemed the Holy Spirit imo. He must be opposed as one would oppose Ahmadinjab - for people to understand more what I'm saying and where I'm coming from.
Obama is more evil than Ahmadinejab. That's where I'm coming from - so don't be fooled by the title "POTUS", imo. Nuff said to attempt to clarify.
Grace, while I hesitate to mock anyone claiming to voice religious beliefs, I feel very sorry for you and anyone/everyone else (are there really others?) who share your "Christian" views.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
That's all I'm gonna say.
JBW, let it never be said that I do not address questions directly. First, no I would not use a plane full of innocents to fly into buildings in any city that we find ourselves at war. That is what modern bombers and smart bombs are for. And striking civilian targets that have no military purpose, is a cowards act. However, if I thought for instance that the only way to end such a war was to carpet bomb the populous of a country until it envied the bronze age... I'd do it in a heart beat.
Again, my condoning torture would depend on what's at stake? Suitcase nuke in a city in the U.S.? Definately.
Abortion. Would I abort hitler, given advanced knowledge of what he would become? No. I'd put him on lithium and ritalin and move his butt to an assylum as a kid.
As to my world view and my liking of W... You obviously have read little of my comments on him. Other than Iraq and Afghanistan, oh and his take on taxation, there was little that I agreed with him on. He gave conservatives a black eye nearly every day for the last 7 years.
As for your insinuations as to the secular founding of America, Best to take it from the founders' mouths...
"W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."
(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
If I may, Grey, I think you're missing Tim's point on this religious freedom thing.
I don't see anyone saying that the founders didn't have religious beliefs, as you have so aptly proved. I think what we're saying is, those founders also thought that their personal religious beliefs did not have to be anyone else's religious beliefs. Just as they were free to worship as they chose--and I'll note here, that even among the few you mentioned, they did not share the same denomination; while they all believed in God, they did not attend the same Churches or hold the same beliefs about God--so was everyone else. While there were no Jews among them for instance, Jews were as free to worship as they chose as was any one of them. And while I can find little that specifically speaks to the right not to worship at all, free thought was one of the cornerstones of the same Enlightenment era thinking in which our founders were steeped.
So while it is true that they each had religious beliefs, including beliefs about the proper role of religious belief in government or early American thought, it doesn't follow that they intended that everyone agree with them, especially considering the fact that they didn't even agree amongst themselves.
More info:
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America
Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians
American Atheists | The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, And The Illuminati
Grace: I, too, love God. But, I do not hate Obama. (I did not vote for the man, but I do not "hate" him nor think he is evil.)
Whether or not "God's Spirit is upon him", Obama will still be used by God. The Bible is filled with stories and people who messed things up, but God still continued on with his plans. Think of Kings Cyrus and Darius of Persia who helped rebuild Jerusalem while the Jews were in exile(see Ezra. )
Watch and pray, my sisters and brothers. Watch and pray.
I know Donald frowns when some folks multi-post (depends on who you are, if you ask me), but after posting that last comment I walked out & flipped on the TV news, which was showing the National Prayer Service. I couldn't've chosen a better bit of proof in support of exactly what I was saying...
Look at this list of clergy, and then reflect on the fact that while they all believe in God, almost none of them share the same beliefs about God. If each one of them was candid, they would tell you that their faith/denomination is the One True Way, and all the other faiths/denominations represented by all the other clergy is wrong. And yet, they all come together to pray for our new President and our country, and allow each other the right to be "wrong" about God and His plan for us all.
This is what that "faggot" Episcopalian Bishop, who one person here says would not be welcome as a Bishop in at least one small conservative Episcopalian church, meant when he said "O God of our many understandings..." This, Grey, is what the founders intended for America. (I would further argue, they also intended that those who didn't believe not pray for our President or this country at all.)
Jim Wallis, Kirbyjon Caldwell to Pray at Inaugural Service | Politics | Christianity Today
President of Sojourners Jim Wallis and Kirbyjon Caldwell, who gave the benediction at President Bush's 2001 inauguration, will offer responsive prayers at the Jan. 21 National Prayer Service that closes the inauguration, the inaugural committee announced today.
Update: Bishop T.D. Jakes will give the sermon at the prayer service Barack Obama will attend the day of inauguration, the Associated Press reports.
The Associated Press had written that a Muslim and Rabbis would pray, but no evangelicals had been announced at that service yet. Today, the committee sent out the full list of participants:
Reverend Samuel T. Lloyd III, Dean of the Washington National Cathedral, will welcome attendees to the event, followed by the invocation of Reverend John Bryon Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington.
Reverend Otis Moss Jr., Senior Pastor Emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio will provide the opening prayer, followed by a prayer for civil leaders delivered by Reverend Andy Stanley, Senior Pastor, North Point Community Church, Alpharetta, Georgia.
Scripture readings will be provided by Dr. Cynthia Hale, Senior Pastor, Ray of Hope Christian Church, Atlanta, Georgia as well as Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, New York City, and the Most Reverend Francisco Gonzalez, S.F., Auxiliary Bishop of Washington.
Rabbi David Saperstein, Executive Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, D.C., has been asked to deliver a psalm.
Responsive prayers will be given by six leaders:
--Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President, Islamic Society of North America, Hartford, CT
--Rev. Suzan Johnson-Cook, Senior Pastor, Bronx Christian Fellowship, New York City
--Rabbi Jerome Epstein, Director, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, New York City
--Rev. Carol Wade of the Washington National Cathedral
--Dr. Uma Mysorekar, President, Hindu Temple Society of North America, New York City
--Rev. Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners, Washington, D.C.
-- Rabbi Haskal Lookstein, Congregation Kehilath Jeshurunm, New York City
--Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, Senior Pastor, Windsor Village United Methodist Church, Houston, TX
The service will conclude with a prayer for the nation delivered by Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., followed by a closing prayer provided by Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori, Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church USA and a benediction by the Reverend Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America.
The Presidential Inaugural Committee previously announced that Sharon E. Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) will deliver the sermon.
Denominations are irrelevent. The belief that the bible means what it says concerning sin and redemption is ALL that matters.
Touting a heretic in the person of Gene Robinson being in a group of ministers and priests, only shows the moral bankruptcy that is rampant in America.
JBW, honest criticism is one thing. But the left went way beyond honest criticism. They tried for 8 years to destroy the president by any means fair or foul and the press led the charge, every honest person regardless of politics would acknowledge it. When a VP candidate gets more scrutiny than a Presidential candidate from the press simply because of the letter next to her name something is seriously wrong.
The belief that the bible means what it says concerning sin and redemption is ALL that matters.
I'm pretty sure those Rabbis and Hindus and Muslims aren't even reading your Bible, Grey, particularly as concerns redemption from sin... They have their own holy books and beliefs.
Not even all of the denominations considered Christian share those beliefs, including mine.
Jews ignored christ and will until prophecy is fulfilled. Hindus and Muslims are irrelevant as their faiths are false. And if your "denomination" doesn't share these beliefs then they aren't "Christian" There is no grey area in redemption in Christ or the definition of sin. The fact that the bible refers to your type of church with warnings against false teachers is all I need to know about your brand of "religion". It's just something to be brought out on Sundays and Holidays and waved as an empty badge. You want to pick and choose what to believe in the bible and therefore make the whole suspect.
To the contrary, Grey, I am not arguing for or against anyone's Christian or non-Christian beliefs. You have every right to believe that I, those folks at the Prayer Service who don't follow your faith, and all others who don't worship in the way that you do, or believe as you do, are damned for all time. That isn't the issue (here, anyway...)
What I thought we were discussing was whether America--by virtue of those founding fathers--does or should base our government, our laws, or our society on any one set of religious beliefs, or whether America was founded on the principle that you have as much right to believe me damned for my heretical views according to your teachings, as I do to believe that my God of infinite Love would never damn me, you, or anyone else to eternal torment, no matter what He thinks of our religious beliefs.
Here in America, the Christian, the Jew, The Hindu, the Muslim, and even the non-believer all have the right and the freedom to worship or not worship as we see fit, and ultimately, the right and the freedom to be wrong about God and His eternal plan.
Greywolfe: Do you follow Deuteronomy closely? How about chapter 13? It is here in black and white...you are to loot and destroy any town that has non-believers. You must gather that loot, put it in the town square and burn it.
Oh, and you must kill them too. And anyone in your family who doubts or worships another god. And, if you are too squeamish to carry out the killing, you must be destroyed as well.
Shall I list any other examples?
Maybe it's not all black and white?
Islam and Christianity both list a form of jihad as crucial to their faith. They also both demand charity for the poor.
The main difference is that Jews and Christians have mollified their views over time, so that means what? They are less holy because they don't follow their books to the letter?
Tim you're being purposefully obtuse. The whole point of Christianity is a fulfillment of law and, because the Jewish people turned their back on Him, Jesus sent his desciples out into all the lands to preach the gospil, through peaceful and loving means. That is how it has been done, with the exception of those times when the Catholic Church became corrupt. Now, as then, Christian desciples go out and serve and teach without conquering a people.
Please, don't try to equate Christianity and Islam. They have nothing in common. What is it with you and your irrational attempts at moral equivelancy? What is the 11th commandment? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It is black and white. Always has been, always will be.
So if it's black and white Greywolfe, when are we going out to kill some infidels dude?
Forgive my snark about religious matters Professor Douglas. I find the injection of religion into politics distasteful. Poking fun at those who insist on doing it is my way of fighting against what I think is a blasphemous use of faith.
Truth stop being an idiot on purpose and try debating what I said earlier.
You and I both(or maybe you don't)know that the Christian religous beliefs are not founded now or ever on conversion through shedding others' blood. The only blood that needed to be shed was, in Christ Jesus.
Your indifference to your own country's history is a trade mark of leftist shallow philosophy. So you and your buddies feel free to keep speaking your drivel. As it's been noted before, all you have is condescending remarks about people who have genuine beliefs in things higher than their own selves. You never put forth a policy idea, you merely tear down those here that do.
Funny thing about the Bible, the New Testament overrules the Old Testament.
IE if they both agree, then fine, but if the OT calls for the death penalty and the NT does not, go with the NT. That's why Christians don't have the same dietary restrictions that Jews have.
With all due respect to Tim, I seldom find reason to challenge another person's religious beliefs, no matter what I happen to think of the beliefs--or the person--in question. (There are exceptions, and the "preaching" of hate toward another person or group of people--as above--tends to be one of them.)
For the most part though, it doesn't matter to me what your faith happens to be. It is my contention that here in America, everyone has the freedom to worship or not as they choose. I believe that the founding fathers created a system where all religious belief--from the standpoint of the country as a whole--was morally equal.
Of course any individual or group can believe & preach that their faith is the most moral and righteous, and that some or all others are an abomination before God. Go ahead & condemn the Muslim, or the Hindu, or the Buddhist, the non-believer, or even this humble Unitarian Universalist for not worshiping according to your beliefs.
(I personally think it rude to come right out & tell a person of another faith that your faith is superior to theirs, and that they're going to H-E-dubyla hockey-sticks if they don't do the same religious dance that you do, but I get that you think that in doing so, you're doing what you can to save their immortal soul. Whatever. I also don't support their hitting you in the face in reply, but I'd understand that response, on an intellectual level, anyway. Since I don't subscribe to the fist in the face thing, my response is to simply recall that if I don't share your beliefs in general, there's no reason I should share your beliefs about me &/or Hell, either. You might just as well condemn me to suffer everlasting pillow-fights with a gaggle of Nile-ish blue aardvarks, or something.)
The fact is, that unless God is some kinda moving target, and actually is all things to all people (including nothing, for some), a whole lot of we humans are holding beliefs about Him that're totally wrong.
Maybe it's everyone except those who follow Greywolfe's sect who're wrong. Maybe Donald's faith is the right one, and anyone not down with his religious peeps (Imagine that... Religious Peeps. Sugary marshmallow goodness for the soul... Yum!!) are in trouble. Maybe it's one of us so-called "nihilists" who are right. Or maybe it's a faith that's not represented anywhere on this blog. (There are many, many faiths aside the one's we've volunteered were our own.)
One of the promises of America--from the founding to now--is that each of us is entitled to worship in a way that someone else--everyone else, even--thinks is the wrong way. The founding fathers so valued religious freedom here in America, that they gave us each the right to worship or not worship ourselves right into Hell--according to another person's beliefs, anyway--as far as our government could or should be concerned. It is my opinion that they wanted one's faith to be a personal matter, and nobody else's damned business, least of all the government's.
What say you?
I really don't have anything to say about your last post repsac3..I'll let the founders talk for me.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6
1.Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
2. Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, from Quincy, Massachusetts, dated December 21, 1809, from the original in our possession.
3. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 254, to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817.
4. John Adams, Works, Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796. )
5. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.
6. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.
Man, I gotta start getting up earlier, you guys are killing me.
Reppy, Tim, T101, that's my fish in a funny hat you're poaching. I piss these guys off because I enjoy arguing with them and then you steer the guy into all this Christian propaganda. You're hogging all the crazy, dudes.
VAG, the press tried to destroy Bush? No, Bush screwed up a lot of shit and it was covered in the press. Yes, they were at times harder on him than he deserved but the disdain he showed for them and the American people at times goes a ways towards explaining things.
As far as Palin goes, I knew more about Obama after he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention than I did about Palin when she was announced as McCain's running mate. We'd had four years to learn about Obama and then were given two months to learn about Palin before deciding if she should be next in line to succeed a 72 year old man with enough nuclear launch codes to split this planet in twain. It had nothing to do with her name-adjacent letter; if the Democrats had chosen a physically attractive unknown woman from a far off exotic state the press would have scrambled just as hard to find out everything about her too. She and McCain have been spewing this press persecution bullshit because they thought it would help them win; it didn't but it seems to have stuck in the collective consciousness of the right.
And the whole Old/New testament thing: so did God just call a do-over or what? It's huge contradictions like this that make me suspect that the whole thing was just written by a bunch of humans.
Grace, you're fruitcake. You're nuttier than squirrel turds. I'm really glad you don't know where I live.
Greywolfe, I never said you wouldn't address my questions directly but as I have called many commenters on this site to task for not doing so I respect that you have.
repsac already stole my argument (that was me and not Tim by the way, reppy; credit, dude) on the religious freedom thing. You seem convinced that you are right and most of the world is wrong on that count. Obviously there is no reasoning with you on this point; as with my niece, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and stomping your feet. There is no reasoning with many of the dangerous people we are fighting right now for the exact same reason.
So you do have a problem fighting a fight using the same rules the other side uses. Sorry, after all that black or white talk I just assumed you meant what you had said earlier. So: you wouldn't kill a few hundred innocents on a plane but you would kill thousands or millions by carpet bombing a city. And killing one civilian for no military purpose is cowardly but killing millions if it serves a strategic purpose is patriotic? Obviously you have no problem killing innocents, the circumstances just have to be right.
Ah, the "suitcase nuke in a US city" argument. All of you guys know that 24 is just a TV show, right? That scenario has never come close to happening in all of human history but even if it did, the odds that we'd have one of the few guys on the planet who knew about it in custody just before it detonated are astronomical. We tortured al-Qahtani for over two months before he started talking and even then a lot of what he said were lies.
Sorry, ritilan is not an option for answering the abort Hitler question. You either can kill one baby or let him live with the knowledge that he will be responsible for millions of deaths. Saying that you'd just go back and buy a bunch of his paintings avoids the point of the hypothetical.
If you are no fan of W then I take you at your word. I haven't read your blog at great length but based on many of the things you've written here, why would I? And you can "let the Founders talk for you" all you like but the fact remains that their beliefs allowed for us to have a choice about religion while yours obviously do not.
Read real close Greywolfe: you don't fool me. You use religion in a pathetic attempt to make your opinion seem to have more merit than another. You and the right use religion for no other reason than to keep a segment of the population's votes.
If John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were so intent on ours being a "Christian Nation" they would have made freedom to practice Christianity a Constitutional Right.
People of your ilk are tired and predictable. Your use of God a talking point is blasphemous and despicable.
And I've given plenty of policy positions on the Professor's site, my own and several others Greypuppy. I suggest you go back and read them before you fall back on your habit of making things up when you don't know what you're talking about. Or did God tell you to be disingenuous toward me?
Grey, you're falling behind.
I already acknowledged--several times, in several comments--that the founders had religious beliefs. Nothing in the quotes you've posted (either time) says that a single one of them would disagree with anything I said about their political or social beliefs about religious freedom for every American, including --& perhaps especially--every American who didn't worship as they themselves did.
Madison might've believed Franklin was going to Hell because they didn't go to the same church, but I contend that Madison would've given his life for Franklin's right to worship as he chose, & thereby reap his ultimate fate.
My question is, what do you think?
-------
JBW(that was me and not Tim by the way, reppy; credit, dude)
I'm sorry... Perhaps I should've said "With all respect to some of the other "nihilists...."
But I singled out Tim in "response" to his January 21, 2009 10:25 AM comment, where he asked Grey about Deuteronomy.
(I was trying to avoid the whole "my God can beat up your God (or Darwin)" thing, and that query sucked ol' Grey right back into defending his comfort zone.)
((Besides, I really believe that one's religion, or lack of it, isn't anyone else's business, and I believe that the founder's felt the same. Worship away for all I care... I will too, but don't expect me to do it the same way you do. And if that guy over there doesn't, why should it matter to either one of us?)
Greywolfe: I will leave you with this thought:
The religions of the world have way more in common than not. The principles of Christianity have their roots in many cultures, but they were catalogued by the writers of the life of Jesus several decades after his death. I've studied comparative religions with great interest over my life. There is absolutely a commonality to the different social aspects and the morality of each religion. You cannot say that Christianity and Islam are not related. They are: Jesus stressed the value of charity above all else. In Islam, charity is one of the five pillars of faith. (Islam also preaches jihad and the negation of the female image, and this is where it all starts to unravel. But there are many aspects that are remarkably similar.)
I can argue this till the cows come home. I would rather not though. (I agree with you about the Catholic church though, but it goes way more than that. Witch burning, for example, was not always brought about by Catholics.)
As for the Old vs. New Testament: You are either for it, or you are against it. Which is it? It is either the infallible word of God, or it is not. Which one?
And why would that be obtuse? It is a question that Christians must either ignore, attempt to explain, or equivocate. Is there a fourth option?
Greywolfe, the taunts of my compatriots aside: what happened to you, sweetheart? I said a lot of things I assume you disagree with and have a lot of objections to: where's the standard conservative indignation? Your silence is boring me, chipmunk.
JBW, some of us work for a living.
Ah Greywolfe, an excellent rebuttal. I myself spin straw into gold so I can see how that would give me an unfair advantage in our exchange of ideas. When you're rich enough to afford the time to say something intelligent you just let me know, OK?
Have I mentioned how much I like your hat? No?
I think it's the first time new US president attracted so much attention all around the world, even before he was elected! He has unique chance to become natural and respected leader of the world (at least western world). But history will not remember words, but actions - so lets give him some time...
Regards,
Lorne, Toronto
Grey: Must be a hell of a job, if it's taking you this long to get back to this thread. Speakin' for myself, I'm most interested in reading your reply... Come on back when you've eaked out your meager pay, put food on your family, & are free to comment, again. (Me, I like the hat....)
Greywolfe, consider this my official repudiation of your intellectual manhood. I'm now accusing you of sitting down whilest pissing. I hope that hat matches your pretty, pretty panties. You can find me at my site if you have any semblance of male genitalia, peaches. I'm out.
Well, now that I've gotten back to the Comp. I do have a life outside trying to show you moral midgets the error of your ways.
So, I'll make a final comment on here and move on to a different thread.
I can show you all day long, references to the founder's plans for this nation's governance and the application of God in it. As late as this quote: "Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the president to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." -U.S. Senate declaration, signed by President Lincoln,
March 30th, 1863
The fact that you wish to ignore our history, and revise what you can't ignore, is lamentable, but a waste of my time to try to show you your errors.
When a man plucks out his own eyes, he deserves no sympathy or aid because of his blindness.
You cut me down because of my faith. It is a true faith, and comments such as the ones above that accuse me of using it as a political tool to hang on to a segment of the population's votes is spurious at best.
The left defines itself by feelings of superiority in looking down on anyone that has a belief in something higher. With the exception of Muslims, which, for some reason they feel the need to kiss their collective arses. Never mind that if the Muslims have their way, the liberal left will be some of the first with their heads lopped off. Amazing.
Moral equivalence is the cancer that is eating this country from the inside out. Political correctness is a case of AIDS on top of it. I hope that at some point, the liberal idiots on here will wake up and smell the coffee on these and other issues that I've seen them argue, but I doubt it. They are truly happy with their idiocy.
There's an old saying, "The only truly happy person is the village idiot." Well, JBW, repsec3, tim...your villages are calling.
Grey:
While I'm sure you're satisfied to lump everyone who disagrees with you together as though we've all made the same argument, and to toss out that cute but meaningless line at the end, the fact is, you've not actually addressed the point of view I offered.
I never knocked your religion in this thread (or anyone else's), have several times acknowledged that the founders (& indeed many elected officials throughout US history) have spoken of their belief in God, and do not profess to be superior to anyone, regardless of what faith they do and do not hold, or even whether they believe, at all. (As far as that last bit, I think there's an interesting story about eyes, splinters, and logs you may wish to review. That big honkin' log of superiority over those who do not share your Christian beliefs is clouding your judgement as well as your vision)
So, congrats for nothing, Grey. Hold fast to those political and social beliefs, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.
Before you get all hot under the collar, I'm still not referring to your religious faith, but to your seeming insistence that the founders intended for all Americans to believe in God, or to worship according to any particular tradition.
Yes, yes, and again yes... Their proclamations about their own faiths show they believed. Those proclamations do NOT show that they expected or demanded the same of their contemporaries, or of all Americans who would follow. Repeating their words doesn't make your supposition any more true, or my rebuttal of it any more false.
Here in America, freedom of religious belief did, does, and hopefully always will mean freedom to worship however one chooses, even if one is not Judeo-Christian--indeed, even if one does not worship, at all.
Thanks for the conversation, though... It was illuminating.
I've never said people were not free to worship as they want. My contention was that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that it was to be governed by the same.
One letter to a Baptist church, promising that they need not worry about a return of another church of England, has been bastardized into a rule that says that God can not be mentioned at any state sponsered event, building, etc. That was never intended and is backed up by countless acts of former presidents, acts of congress, and rulings of the Supreme Court.
Our nation's history has been denied because of a ruling almost 200 years after the founding that tried to invalidate those years.
Your stand that the here and now is more important than our heritage is the biggest bone of contention between me and you repsac3. Always will. Again, it's pretty much black and white, don't you think?
Grey: I started a reply, but got stuck on the facts. So here, I intend to do something that I seldom see on contentious partisan blogs, left or right. I'm going to admit I'm ignorant. I don't feel I know enough about the subject--as you see it, anyway--to reply intelligently.
You say that America was founded on and was to be governed according to Judeo-Christian principles.
What are these principles? I see many references to them on various sites on the web, but most are assertions of fact like yours. I cannot find where anyone talks about any of these principles by name.
Teach me. (Or make fun of me, or ignore me, or do whatever it is you wish to do. I put my ignorant self in your hands.)
One letter to a Baptist church,...
I also put a good deal of stock in the Treaty of Tripoli, for what it's worth.
That said, I've little problem with elected officials or people working for the government mentioning God, the Divine Creator, ... (though not Jesus), even while performing their official duties. I do object to their leading citizens in prayer, however.
I wrote a few words (several, actually) on your last paragraph, but I'd prefer to hear what you have to say as regards these Judeo-Christian principles, first. My treatise on "now vs then" or "now & then, together" can wait.
If Donald prefers, and if you're willing, we can move this to your blog or mine. (Whatever we are doing, we ain't talkin' B.O., 44 anymore...) Besides, I think this'd make a pretty interesting blog topic on it's own...
Look forward to hearing back...
repsac3, for an honest conversation, I'll gladly move this over to my blog, by way of a post on the topic and we can debate it there. However, I do not allow personal attacks, name calling, or cheap shots. We will have a meaningful debate or none at all. Should have the post done by Wednesday, as I have to be back in the truck at 5am Central time I won't be writing much of it tonight.
Fair enough, sir.
As it's your blog, (& it's moderated too, as I recall), you hold all the cards.
(Contrary to the rumor here, I believe I behave pretty well in the first place-- I throw the second punch, but very sedom the first--but should you have any concerns about my spoutin' off with bad language or silly namecalling, you are covered. And as long as I remember to make a copy of everything I send, just in case you believe it's not fit to post for some reason, I'm as covered as I need to be, too.)
Meanwhile, I'll be reading up on the subject at this blog I found while trying to research my last reply: American Creation.
Basically, it's a small group of people quite well versed in US & world history, law, and religion having the very same debate we are. You can decide for yourself of course, but I'm prepared to say these folks put my meager knowledge & facts-at-my-fingertips commenting to shame.
Anyway, I'll keep watch for your post.
Got on a roll tonight and finished it early. Gonna pay for it tomorrow, but what the hey. It's for the kids. Go check it out at your earliest convenience. Bring coffee, it's not short.
Post a Comment