QUICK LINKS
Hillary to Gays: "It Was A Mistake"
The Democratic presidential candidates met last night with what was promoted as a LBGT Forum.
AOL and Associated Press is reporting today that the candidates faced tough questions from the panel. In fact, AP writer, Michael Blood said, "the forum forced the candidates to confront politically touchy issues that have vexed a nation." (Read story).
While this may be true, there are a couple of things that struck me as I read yesterday's media run-up on the forum, then the reporting of it this morning.
It occurred to me that it was this same group of candidates that dissed Fox News and a Black leadership group only a couple of months ago when they ask the candidates to participate in a debate that was to be broadcast on Fox News, which has exponentially more audience than the LOGO channel that broadcast this event.
Apparently the candidates are far more interested in reaching the gay community than the moderates and Blacks that may have seen them on Fox.
Hillary's web site has said leading up to this event, "We are encouraging Hillary's LBGT supporters from across the country, and their families and friends to host an LGBT Americans for Hillary watch party."
But what is most striking, to me, at least, is the fact that she actually admitted to caving in to the homosexual lobby. One wonders what other lobbying groups she would cave in to.
She said she made a mistake last March when Gen. Peter Pace told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality was "immoral"and that he did not support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military.
Clinton's immediate response then was, "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."
She later said that after that comment aired on ABC News, her friends started calling her and referring to her allies at HRC. The next day, she tried to clarify her statement by saying that she did not think homosexuality was immoral. Then she launched an attack on Gen. Pace.
Last night she told her homosexual audience and panelists, "It was a mistake."
Clinton also told the forum that she believed the Republican-led,"demeaning, de-grading and mean-spirited opposition to gay rights is over."
That, of course, is the mantra used to describe anyone who will not affirm the homosexual life style.
There are important decisions that will be made between now and November 2008. Those decisions will dramatically impact how America will look in the next generation-- your children's and grandchildren's America.
The words, "choose you this day..." come to mind.
May God help us.
____________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
64 Comments:
I was wondering how long it would take Gary to get up a post whining about the Visable Vote Forum. Any bet's that has big air kisses for all the GOP candidates after they finish kissing the feet of the religious right at their so-called "Value voters" forum?
"Apparently the candidates are far more interested in reaching the gay community than the moderates and Blacks that may have seen them on Fox."
No, as the candidates have clearly stated on mulitple occasions and in multiple venues, they chose not to appear in the Fox news debate because Fox News is a GOP propaganda organ and not a legitimate news organization, appearing would have granted undeserved credibility to Fox News as a legitimate news organization.
This has appeared in far too many places for Gary to be unaware of it, so he must be intentionally misrepresenting it. Also, I doubt moderates or Blacks represent as sizable of a proportion of Fox News viewers as they do of Logo viewers. I believe Fox News viewers are largely white, conservative and misinformed.
As for Hillary's change of heart with regards to Pace's comments, she was responding to her constituents, something politicians should do! If someone, who said something positive about homosexuality, were to change their public statements after intense lobbying from anti-gay groups like FFN, I seriously doubt Gary would characterize it as "caving". Like it or not, Gary, gays and lesbians are tax paying citizens of this nation with every bit as much right to have their voices heard as you!
Caving to lobbying groups is EXACTLY the behaviour on the part of politicians that Gary seeks with his "Change the State in '08" agenda! Seems Gary has no problem with politicians "caving", but more with who they are "caving" to.
I have to laugh every time Gary, and others on the right like him, go apoplectic any time a public figure or organization comes out in support of gay rights. He concludes they must've "caved" in to the (usually "radical") "homosexual" lobby.
Actually, the Democratic candidates' views in last night's forum pretty much line up with our nation's views about gay rights, if not slightly a little "behind the times."
Like it or not, a majority of Americans say gay unions should be legal (59 percent), are acceptable (57 percent), should have equal rights on the job (89 percent), and almost half think gays should be allowed to marry (46 percent) and are morally acceptable (47 percent).
Don't believe me? Read the latest Gallup poll.
Looks like the Dems are actually trailing the public some when it comes to gay rights. And the Republicans? Well, they're just simply out of touch. And that puts Gary way out on the fringe of society.
So, Gary, these candidates aren't "caving"; they are learning, just like the American people. More and more people are getting to know the gay people in their families and communities and learning the truth -- Christians included. My heavily Christian family has come to accept, then love, and now embrace my partner and me. That's 50 or so former supporters you've lost, just because they know me. They didn't cave, they learned.
That's why you are losing, and will continue to lose your negative public relations battle. Don't insult the American public by claiming they are "caving" to some all-powerful gay rights lobby. We aren't that gullible.
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
Fox is mainsteam? B'ah! Fox is but just one of the many illegitimate 'news' organization owned by a single individual... that we in the mainstream are force-fed because of Murdoch's controlling interest.
Gary,
Ms. Hillary's real desire is power! She really does want to "rule the world"! She will say anything to accomplish this. It is like this is HER chance at the brass ring! It is now or never!
Desire and ability to take power... is what Rupert Murdoch and Fox News is all about.
RE: Hillary's real desire is power!
What a revelation!! Shocking!! And what about Bush? And Romney? And Guiliani? Brownback? McCain? Obama? Richardson? All of congress? Every past president?
Newsflash: You don't run for president unless you have a big ego and a desire for power.
"My heavily Christian family has come to accept, then love, and now embrace my partner and me."
Well, your family should love you, even love your "friend," and even embrace you and your "partner" individually and as friends, as that's what Christians do (or at least should do) for everyone.
So, no big surprise there, but why don't you ask them what they think of your behavior? Ask them if they think it's right in the eyes of the lord.
Hopefully they give you an honest answer. If they give you a vague "it's fine answer," feel free to probe for a more honest opinion... Try something like "no, seriously, what do you think of the fact that I put my ____ in his ___ and we play with each other's ____? Are you guys cool with that?
I know this is a crazy concept, it IS possible to accept, love, and embrace someone who you love, without loving and/or approving of their behavior.
Have my kids ever lied? Duh... Have they ever stolen anything? One of them has and got in trouble. Have they ever cheated in a game? Of course. Do I still love them? Duh! Do I like or approve of those behaviors? No. but I still love them.
I have a couple friends that are gay and I don't approve of their behavior, but that doesn't mean I don't still like them and/or enjoy their company. Is this so hard a concept to understand?
I'm not going to try and say that your parents aren't Christians, but if they are, they either:
-Love you, but don't like the behavior and/or lifestyle you've chosen, or
-They haven't read their Bibles enough to know that God forbids and detests that kind of behavior, and their views are out of alignment with God, or
-You're making this all up, or
-You have parents who think they're Christians because they grew up in America and they're not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc, so they MUST be Christians.
I certainly hope for option 1, and that they'll learn enough about the God they follow to know what He thinks on the subject.
Finally, as for "Love", in general, who is it that truly loves his children ...? The parent that disciplines or corrects their child for doing wrong, so they become a better person, or the parent who says "yeah, I'm fine with you doing wrong"?
I have a number of friends I grew up with whose parents would pretty much let them do whatever they wanted (didn't care where they went, who they were with, what time they came home, etc), and I used to think "man, that's cool," but when I look at where their lives went, I realize that my parents loved me enough to care and guide me.
Because to make a distinction between parents being lazy (or giving up) and true love...
Eric
Thanks for that shining example of Christianist bigotry, Eric.
I assume you tell your gay "friends" that you don't approve of where they put their penises, and that you oppose any legal recognition of thier relationships, and think it is OK to fire them or deny them housing just because they are gay. If not then you aren't a true friend, becuase friends don't lie to each other.
I assume you've also checked with both your family and your wife's family to ensure that they all approve of each and every position in which you put your penis into her vagina, as well as her mouth and anus. I mean otherwise, how can you be sure that they approve of your "lifestyle"?
As for your asinine assumptions about Tony's family, there are plenty of Christians, who are fine with homosexuality and don't obesses over what other people do with their genitals. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean they aren't just as Christian as you.
By the way, what a sad commentary on your "faith" that you find approval or disapproval of the private consensual sexual activity of others to so pivotal to it.
Correction:
"Be careful to make a distinction between parents being lazy (or giving up) and true love..."
Eric
If they asked on these subjects:
"I assume you tell your gay "friends" that you don't approve of where they put their penises"
True. If they asked, that's what I'd tell them. I don't agree with their choice of behavior in that area. To do otherwise would be honest. If you had a friend in jail for stealing, would you lie and tell him you approve of it?
"and that you oppose any legal recognition of thier relationships"
If they asked on this, then I would tell them that marriage is between man and a woman. Period. That's what marriage is. You can call an apple an orange, but in truth, it isn't. If they want to live together and put whatever body parts they want, wherever they want, between closed doors, then fine. If they want to add to give more control to each other lives, fine, sign documents giving power of attorney to make medical decision, put them in your will, put your mortgage in both of your names, whatever. If that's what's important, do those thing. But if your real goal is to redefine what marriage is or try to get societal approval for your behavior, then sorry, I don't agree. What the real issue? Having "rights" that can be obtained by other means, or changing society? Maybe I'll go marry myself 105 wives, have 242 children, then claim 347 exemptions on my taxes. Any problem with that? If so, on what basis. Oh yeah, and I'll be sure to force my employer to provide medical coverage for my "happy" family and if they don't agree to pay for it, I'll cry "happy" rights and "happy" discrimination, until they're force to by the government. I'll win a big lawsuit, put the company out of business and life happily ever after (except for having 105 people to potentially make honey-do lists for me).
"and think it is OK to fire them or deny them housing just because they are gay."
If they asked about this... No, that, in most cases would be discrimination that isn't allowed against anyone. That's not a "gay" right, that just a basic right.
"If not then you aren't a true friend, becuase friends don't lie to each other."
You're right about that. So, there's what I'd say if those subjects came up (and they have at times). Do you think it would be impossible to remain friends? If so, why? Would it be that you wouldn't tolerate a difference of opinion? Sorry, but I DO tolerate difference of opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or support it.
Eric
So, in other words, you're not really thier friend. You aren't at all honest with them.
"Sorry, but I DO tolerate difference of opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or support it."
So if one of your gay "friends" told you that they thought Christianity was a dangerous fairytale that people have used to justify their own bigotry for centuries, that wouldn't stand in the way of you remaining friends with them?
"So, in other words, you're not really thier friend. You aren't at all honest with them."
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Eric
"So if one of your gay "friends" told you that they thought Christianity was a dangerous fairytale that people have used to justify their own bigotry for centuries, that wouldn't stand in the way of you remaining friends with them?"
No. Is that such a surprise? In fact, one had said something that amounted to as much (not those exact words, of course, but a similar meaning). I disagree with him, of course, but we're still friends. Does it seem so crazy to you that people could actually disagree on a certain point(s), but still have other things in common and be friends? Do all of your friends have the same opinion as you about everything? If not, based on what you seem to imply, you couldn't possibly be friends.
I think what you're lacking experience with might be called "maturity." Sure, I may think he's got a bit of a mental disorder because of the way he lives parts of his life, but he thinks the same of me (He can't possibly fathom why I'd get up early on a Sunday morning, for example, hehe). But ya know what? We both like Spicy Chinese food, we both like deep discussions on a variety of topics. We both enjoy driving and BS'ing about sports cars. We both work with computers and like to keep up on latest technologies and have technical discussions.
If having an honest friendship like this seems so impossible to you, then I'd suggest you examine your own heart and consider if perhaps you're a bit bigoted, selfish, closed-minded, or intolerant yourself... What do you use to justify YOUR bigotry?
Eric
P.S. BTW, I've been married to the woman I love for over 15 years, and guess what, we still don't always agree on everything. It's crazy... I know...
Oh my friends and I certianly don't always agree on everything, but I could never consider someone with such a negative view of my life as you've provided to be a friend. We might be on friendly terms, but you'd never be more than an aquantence or co-worker. To me a friend is someone, who you can depend on absolutely, I wouldn't feel that way with someone, who was laboring under the bigoted delusion that I was suffering from a mental disorder. It isn't a question of maturity, it's one of trust, how can you trust someone, who denies your humantity and seeks to legally deny you equality?
to Eric,
So good to see the TRUTH! You have "put on the armor of God"!
Those who snidely ridicule you and your thoughts, if they don't change their ways, will reap what they are sowing!
That is so sad and NOT what we wish for them.
Has the Lord "given them over"? I don't know; but, they are very close!
to 9:02
Your strong sensitivity to FEELLING abused by what you and others call "bigoted" and "intolerant" and they "deny" your "humanitity and seeks to legally deny you equality" is not so much from mental disorder as it is more associated with EMOTIONAL disorder. You are coming from a pain that may not be obvious to you as to its source; but, you do FEEL the pain of REJECTION and this is so strong you cannot or will not see otherwise.
That is why you FEEL the loyalty to a "partner", even for sexual activity, so strongly. You NEED to belong, be accepted, be appreciated, be acknowledged even at the expense of common decency. You DEMAND people accept and legally allow you to practice a lifestyle that is deviant. It is a perverse way of thumbing your nose at society. A society that in your eyes, did nothing to make your path any different.
You REALLY do know that what the gay practice of sexual behavior is not right. You want so for it to be right. You are hanging on to the thread of hope that it will be accepted.
If you do not see that the gay practice is not right, then you may well be beyond redemption, sad to say. It is still in your choice but will take a major, major transformation of though to be free. Can you face the truth and let the lies go?
All too many people blogging on this post do not understand the separation of church and state. They believe that it is to keep God out of government.
That is incorrect. The separation of church and state, is the seperation of DUTIES of church and state.
The DUTIES of the state are justice and defense.
The DUTIES of the church are compassion, mercy, and the welfare of the people. Since Roosevelt, the state has been taking on the duties of the church. The Socialists church IS the state, and this is the very dangers of what our forefathers fought against.
So, as Christians, we love our neighbors who are homosexual. But as citizens of the United States, to see justice, and "promotion" of the general welfare, we support the best and healthiest form of living for the citizens of this country, and that is marriage between one woman and one man. Homosexuals looking for acceptance should go to the church, not the state for this acceptance, or they are crossing the line of separation of church and state.
Hilary is another warped individual who will change like a chameleon to get elected.
anon 6:49
Actually, separation means that the church has no duties as far as the state is concerned, other than keeping its nose out of government to maintain tax excempt status.
It's nice that you love your gay neighbors and offer them qualified acceptance in your church.
That, however, has no effect on the state's constitutional duty to offer equal rights.
Where does it say equal rights?
What rights? And where?
People are including "rights" in the Constitution that don't exist.
We have the right to be responsible citizens in charge of keeping ourselves under control so the state doesn't have to do it for us.
That is about it.
As far as separation of church and state, then why doesn't socialism's "beliefs" dogmas etc. keep out of our government?
It's the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
Actually, separation means that the church has no duties as far as the state is concerned, other than keeping its nose out of government to maintain tax excempt status.
I wish they wrote it that way , it would saved much debate later on .
This post has been removed by the author.
"The future debates from my world view willappear to based on man made standards ."
All standards are man made, some just seek to grant themselves extra authority by claiming to be divinely inspired.
2:21
They did write it that way. The constitution defines the roles and it doesn't define any for religion in our government or in looking out for the welfare of our people. In, fact, it doesn't even mention god. Not once.
This post has been removed by the author.
"All standards are man made, some just seek to grant themselves extra authority by claiming to be divinely inspired"
And your current self seeking humanistic seculist view has more merit then others on what basis ?
Your rights depend on what is popular at the time of certain culture . Perhaps in a post Judeo Christian ethic it works , in Europe your secularist world view has much blood on its hands also . .
Of
Secular humanism now promotes rights based on the current culture . I somehow would not jump and down about it however because you see Gay Rights as taking advantage of the new culture shift . As more and more gays become parents and grow more concerned about their kids then their own selves , "parents do that " and their own kids receive different and conflicting messages they , they will see what I mean . Sometimes it is good to have standards that unite us and bind us together .
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.
by your own admission your standard has changed considerably in the people it covered. Gays and lesbians just want it to expand slightly more (2-5% using your side's numbers), and you freak out as if it were the end of the world. It simply isn't logical.
The fact of the matter is god, if she/he/it exists, isn't saying anything, all we have is what men claim God said. Apparently God was A-OK with slavery prior to 1865, so I really don't think he's a very good guide.
anom said
by your own admission your standard has changed considerably
Well not my standard , those in that culture . The principle has not changed however . Not to mention women could not vote , in fact I believe you had to own property to vote . Have to ck on that one.
anom said
in the people it covered. Gays and lesbians just want it to expand slightly more (2-5% using your side's numbers),
Me
Ha ha , my side ? I pretty much speak for myself , not sure about percentage of gays to the rest of population . Seems like it is based on political views more then real sources.
anom said
anom said
and you freak out as if it were the end of the world. It simply isn't logical.
Me
What are you talking about , want to see people freak out , someone get on the loud speaker and say yub a dub dub, yea for the grub , yeaaa God during lucnch at a public school . You will have lawsuits . As if saying grace will morally corupt an individual . LOL
anom said
Apparently God was A-OK with slavery prior to 1865, so I really don't think he's a very good guide.
Me
And your point is Stalin was a better guide ? I think people are the problem for the most part in how we treat others , I don't blame God .
God says love those who do evil against you , its the human race's fault if we treat people badly , not the Lord's .
So when you treat people badly , who do you blame ?
right, because it's either mick's fundamentalist god or stalin, there's nothing in between. Of course, you blame people, they are the ones making up the rules, even those they claim are from god.
Oh come on JC , your viewpoint has made an effort to support child molesters , thats your in between . Do you need me to repeat your posts , they have already been forwarded to the proper authorities
You have already been documented .
Recorded , you think your perversion here can be hidden ?
John Calhoun stated
"While I don't agree with this viewpoint, I don't think holding it makes one a pervert per se."
JC said
.. From what I have seen, the main thrust to his opposition to exclusion of NAMBLA was his feeling that Gays as a persecuted minority should not exclude anyone. While I don't agree with this viewpoint, I don't think holding it makes one a pervert per se.
http://www.nambla.org/hay2002.htm
Harry Hay, a courageous activist in
the cause of personal liberation, founded the first lasting gay group in North America, the Mattachine Society, in 1950. He also founded the Radical Faeries, inspired by ideas and rituals of Native American peoples.
Recalling his own experiences as a gay boy growing up in California, Hay spoke out on issues of man/boy love. Read what he had to say:
Harry Hay on Man/Boy Love, by David Thorstad
Forum at New York University, 1983
NAMBLA Conference, San Francisco, 1984
NAMBLA Conference, Los Angeles, 1986
Spirit of Stonewall Conference, New York, 1994
NAMBLA Conference, New York, 1994
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=182
Harry Hay
Collection: Hay, Harry
Harry Hay (1912-2002) is best known as the founder of the U.S. gay movement but is increasingly known as a pioneer of gay spirituality. He started the Mattachine Society in 1950 and launched the Radical Faerie movement in 1979. Behind both efforts, he hoped to recover and affirm the nature of homosexuals as "separate people" with a consciousness that distinguished them from heterosexuals even more than their sexuality.
as someone who is on the border because ofmy faith , tending to be pro gay , i find JC views not the norm of the liberal viewpoint . he obviously has some issues
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
o, no big surprise there, but why don't you ask them what they think of your behavior? Ask them if they think it's right in the eyes of the lord.
What behavior would that be? As you know even IF the bible condemns same sex relations it only condemns very specific ones.
Is living with someone of the same gender proscribed? No.
Is romantically loving someone of the same gender proscribed? No.
Is kissing someone of the same gender proscribed? No.
Is hugging someone of the same gender proscribed?
Is raising a family with a spouse of the same gender proscribed? No.
Heck is 'spooning' with someone of the same gender proscribed? No.
AT MOST MEN ONLY are proscribed from anal sex with other men (a 'behavior' that only 50% of US gay men even bother to perform.
So please tell me what is this 'behavior' that these family members will ever see that is not 'right' in the eyes of the lord?
And Mick this statement makes no sense:
"The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable."
Natural rights are inalienable for because they are 'natural', i.e. they are part of us and not artificial constructs of the human mind. You have a right to life because you are alive, you have a right to liberty because you have the ability to be free in thought and physical space, you have a right to happiness because that is the biological reward mechanism that motivates our actions and desire to live.
That's what Jefferson's statement is saying - that we all have a right to exercise our biological imperatives and the purpose of government is to facilitate this and regulate it so our each exercising our rights doesn't prevent someone else from exercising theirs.
As to the NAMBLA silliness that is just the standard troll by anyone wanting to derail any discussion about adult sexuality. When the appropriate age for sexual activity is has changed throughout history from the 'as soon as they can' post-adolescent biblical stances to modern late teen models. Harry Hayes wasn't supporting anything that vastly more Xtians have by marrying 13 and 14 year old brides.
There will always be discussion about how early is too early to be having sex but considering all the heterosexual 'Lolita' advocates a quick internet search brings up it really isn't an issue limited to gays. It really is a separate discussion that relates to all sexual orientations and an honest person would point that out.
But then when has honest discussion been part of the F&FN agenda?
Oh and as a total fyi has anyone else noticed that the F&FN link
http://www.faithandfreedom.us/
No longer works but
http://faithandfreedom.us/
does?
Anon 8:34 - JC, snookums, is that you? We haven't exchanged for just AGES! My goodness, but your language is filthy. I thought I recognized your postings recently from your typical foul-mouthed rants. So Mick drives you around the twist, does he? Yay!
As always, best to you, toots :-)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ohtur ,
That was from the Enclopedia, I put the quotations above it .
Natural rights are rights only those rights that man has believed to be natural Oshtur .
I got from the statement you can believe in the Constitution and the rights protected are natural rights , but you don't have to believe they are inalienable , from God . Which you don't from what you have stated in the past .
You are relying on your own intellect , not that of God's . That is what I got of it , was kind of confusing .
I believe it was an attempt by the Enclyopedia to be politically correct and put your view in there , respectfully .
My view is that inalienable rights do not reflect man's inteelect and it means we do not rely on Congress or who ever to give those rights , only to protect what is already there . Our two different views on that promote almost all our future views on many subjects in my opinion .
I got from the statement you can believe in the Constitution and the rights protected are natural rights , but you don't have to believe they are inalienable , from God . Which you don't from what you have stated in the past .
Hmmm you are reading too much into it. 'The Creator' mentioned by Jefferson was the deist universe creator. Its holy books are your texts on math, biology, and sciences in general. They are inalienable because they are natural in origin, not because a magic guy in the sky declared them so. The deist Creator has never spoken a word or ever declared anything. Your rights are inalienable because they are part of you and as our understanding of our natures increases of course more detailed inalienable rights will be understood too.
My view is that inalienable rights do not reflect man's inteelect and it means we do not rely on Congress or who ever to give those rights , only to protect what is already there . Our two different views on that promote almost all our future views on many subjects in my opinion .
See your statement makes me think you don't understand the situation. Congress nor the constitution 'gives' any rights - they only recognize existing rights, and that process of identification IS an ongoing intellectual process. Our rights are natural in origin, they come from our own biology and the real world we live in. What Jefferson was saying is that a legitimate government can not pretend they do not exist and retain its legitimacy and no one need justify their 'right' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' - any government so far out of touch with reality that it would even try and deny these things is a broken tool that should be recognized as 'unnatural' and rejected.
Congress nor the constitution 'gives' any rights
That is the way I understand it also . Your understanding of inalienable and the dictionary are confusing me somewhat .
The right to
drive a car is not inalienable , the basic premise that some on the left see government medical care as a right may be a good example of how we differ on this .
I don't
believe
government sponsored medical care is a right , I see medical care for everyone as a good thing , even
a possible politcal goal ,
even a Godly goal , or to you a humanistic goal worth
pursueing , I would not call it an
inalienable right . It appears some on the left side of the politcal compass , secular mainly see it as a right .
adjective
1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" [ant: alienable]
2. not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"
JC - your slanderous accusation of Mick is desperately vicious, and you should feel the heat of shame faming in your soul.
You, butterwings, have ridden right off the rails. It's past time to reign yourself in. No?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
inalienable:
1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" [ant: alienable]
2. not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"
Hmmm exactly. Natural rights are exactly that since they derive from the real world that can not be made differently than it is. This is in contrast to if their source were actually a magic guy in the sky who could change them on a whim.
Inalienable means they are 'part and parcel' to the individual and can not be separated from them or ignored by a valid government.
As to your 'right' examples they rather soft - while being licensed to drive isn't a 'right' having reasonable equal access to the license IS a right in our government based on all of its citizens having a right to equal access to government.
And having access to healthcare is more an ethical, moral and social issue than a 'rights' issue.
And as an aside what's with the grade school taunts and foul language? Just makes everyone shake their heads at the speaker.
Oshtur said
And having access to healthcare is more an ethical, moral and social issue than a 'rights' issue.
I agree , but interestingly enough I thought you would call that a rights issue from your worldview .
Miracles , whoops , strange things
still happen .
He Mimi ,
The Redsox came into town last week . They have the most loyal fans in our area , except for of course the Mariners . i had one guy come through my booth who drove down from Canada to watch the Redsox play .
I told him I was going to charge him extra for wearing his Red Sox shirt , he told me the Custom Agent said he was going to confiscate it .
God Bless you ,
Hey Mick - we were at the game yesterday when we went down in flames - almost shut out in the first 6, come back nail biter to break my heart in the 9th. I actually love the Orioles too, and have been known to drive to Baltimore to see them.... But the family is all Red Sox all the way. Looking for the Mariners to heat up the bats - seen any games?
Can we get back to some basics???
Let's hear from some of our country's early leaders. What do they have to say:
OUR NATION’S GODLY HERITAGE
Noah Webster was a schoolmaster and later became the “keeper” of the English language for the Colonials, believing that Americans should have their own distinct version of English.
Noah Webster’s Teaching Faith
One of America’s well-known statesmen began his career as a school teacher, using the Bible as his most valued textbook. Noah Webster was born in Connecticut and came of age during the American Revolution. He was educated at Yale University, and when he lacked the funds for further studies, he became a teacher.
His early impressions of Colonial classrooms were disparaging they were crowded, disorganized and poorly equipped. But he continued to teach because he believed that the children of our new nation should be taught to honor God’s Word and to learn the moral laws in the Scriptures. He also believed that Americans should have American books from which to learn spelling and grammar. His “blue-backed speller” (so nicknamed for its colorful cover) became the standard for school children for over 100 years. He later developed our country’s first dictionary because he believed that all Americans should speak distinctly American English, not British English.
Though Noah Webster is best known for his groundbreaking work with our language, we acknowledges him for his passion to teach godly values to the school children of our country. He said, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
FOUNDING FATHERS ON EDUCATION
By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.
--Benjamin Rush, in a letter written in defense of the Bible in all schools in America
In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
--Daniel Webster, 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language
Although guided by our excellent Constitution in the discharge of official duties, and actuated, through the whole course of my public life, solely by a wish to promote the best interests of our country; yet, without the beneficial interposition of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, we could not have reached the distinguished situation which we have attained with such unprecedented rapidity. To HIM, therefore, should we bow with gratitude and reverence, and endeavor to merit a continuance of HIS special favors.
--James Wilson, in a 1797 letter to John Adams
The basics you are illustrating being that although there have always been Christianists they aren't the people actually considered our Founding Fathers or the primary architects of this nation. Benjamin Rush was trying to sway Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a deist. James Wilson was writing to John Adams, a Unitarian.
Christianists have existed since the founding of your nation (or as Jefferson called them "genus irritabile vatum") and on the Jefferson memorial there is a quote from a letter he wrote to Benjamin Rush about them:
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the "genus irritabile vatum" who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me: enough too in their opinion, this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.
Seems the tactics of the zealots hasn't changed in the past few hundred years either.
Pity.
Something to understand, God will take any person(s) he wants to to fulfill his plan for humans. Just as at the time of Jesus, the High Priest for the year spoke: (John 11:51-52), "[Caiaphas] He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one."
God has used people who, if we verify (if we really can find the accurate truth about what a person says or believes) all the things said by any person chosen by God for his purpose, we may find all kinds of variances! That does NOT mean that even if the individual is not a perfect vessel based on any given criteria, God will use them to fulfill his overall plan!
Here is an interesting example, not exact, but an example of how a meaning can be perceived from different angles:
"In the movie, "Conspiracy Theory" a few years back, Mel Gibson's character laid out, in detail, the complete Money Trust conspiracy, from Nathan Meyer Rothschild through the Federal Reserve to the current global economic systems.
Everything Gibson's character related was true, but it was delivered by a character who had been subjected by the CIA to mind-altering drugs and brainwashing experiments.
The film delivered a subliminal message that linked the facts about the Money Trust to the rantings a wild-eyed, delusional paranoid in the minds of the viewers. The secret of the Money Trust conspiracy is now safely hidden in plain sight."
No matter how many different angles our early Americans came from, God did use them to fulfill his purpose! When we insist on a particular label for each, we miss the import!
Ok, here are the quotes on the Jefferson Memorial:
ArticleDiscussionView sourceHistory Quotations on Jefferson Memorial
From Thomas Jefferson Wiki
Below are listed the quotations shown on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. When appropriate, we have also posted the passages from which the selections were taken, with the quoted excerpts in bold.
Inscription under the Dome
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."[1]
Panel One
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We . . . solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states. . . And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Panel Two
"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion . . . No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."
Original Passage:
"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ." -- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I
Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., courtesy National Park ServicePanel Three
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan."
Original Passages:
"But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not think to exclude us from going to other markets to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, or to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." -- "A Summary View of the Rights of British America"
"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it. . . ." -- Notes on the State of Virginia
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." -- The Autobiography
"Preach, my dear sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people." -- to George Wythe, August 13, 1780?
"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." -- to George Washington, January 4, 1786
Panel four
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Original Passage:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
Footnotes
? Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.
Further Sources
National Park Service. Thomas Jefferson National Memorial. http://www.nps.gov/thje/
Look for sources in the Thomas Jefferson Portal
Retrieved from "http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Quotations_on_Jefferson_Memorial"
Thanks for the references that so clearly illustrate support for my position. The ending is the best:
"We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
The idea that citizens shouldn't be allowed to marry merely because of what someone might have said and might have meant 2000 years ago IS against everything this nation was based on.
Thanks for the reference - all archived away for future usage.
But the family is all Red Sox all the way. Looking for the Mariners to heat up the bats - seen any games?
Going to see the Angels with my son next time they come in . They are in first place , we are on their heels in second . Should be a play off atomsphere .
Seems that mankind hasn't changed in the past 2000 years or so...still the same old arguments. Just on computers now.
Still arguments about God or lack of, still arguments about the environment, still the same arguments about slavery, still the same arguments about homosexuals.
"There is nothing new under the sun."
What is interesting is......
For all the noise of many people that poo-poos the Bible, Jesus, God, and many other aspects of the Christian faith, there are those who do "hear His voice" and respond to His call! Over ages this has been so and most of the people don't even know the others! I wonder why??? Maybe, just maybe God does work in mysterious ways that mankind cannot see! There are people who are educated, there are people who are not! There are rich, poor and anywhere in between that have accepted God's gift of salvation. There are white, black, yellow, red and any other color, who have harkened to His call! I wonder, could they ALL be delusional!!??? No, I think not. The truth is, there IS a God, there is a Son of God who was born in this world as a baby, that this baby grew into a man - a sinless man in God's sight, he offered himself on a cross to death bearing the sins of many, he rose the third day and was witnessed by over 500 people, he ascended into heaven before witnesses eyes and promised to return for those who believe in him, they will live forever with God! Hallelujah! There have been master muscians and artists who have recorded their impressions of His majesty in great music and art!
The choice is ours! Do we accept this or not!? All the debates and all the differences of opinion will stop! Each person will be on one side or the other! Believe it or not!
The choice is ours! Do we accept this or not!? All the debates and all the differences of opinion will stop! Each person will be on one side or the other! Believe it or not!
Of course Mr. Ripley, that is the choice. And in the US it is a constitutionally protected choice - people have a RIGHT to believe or NOT to believe in any religious context. AND it has been determined that no matter what side of the issue they might fall, they have a right to equal access to government and public accommodations regardless of that opinion.
But then if the supporters of F&FN supported these basic American concepts then there would be no F&FN. Funny, eh?
Once again, OV,
"It would behoove us all to examine and re-examine our beliefs. For just because the Constitution of the United States guarantees us freedom to worship God in any manner that we choose, it does not guarantee the God will be pleased with that choice."
---author unknown
And it behooves the US Government to get out of the providing services to citizens that a person's neighbors or church should provide.
Then there wouldn't be all the crying about "rights" when it really is "wants" for me, myself, and I that is driving the crying.
it does not guarantee the God will be pleased with that choice.
Not to worry, my god is totally happy with my choices, may yours be the same.
Then there wouldn't be all the crying about "rights" when it really is "wants" for me, myself, and I that is driving the crying.
Yes those demanding special rights for their marriages and that the government should ignore other citizen's marriages are reprehensible. I totally agree.
OV, by your own definition you are "the Devil himself!"
People in the true Christian "church" and those outside the true Christian "church" need to understnd that:
When one reads the New Testament in the Bible, one should see that the commission by Jesus to the church was to be a witness of him and that means what he just went through, death for everyones sins on the cross, was buried for three days, was raised from the dead and was witnessed in his resurrection by over 500 people, and ascended to heaven promising to return for those who believe in him.
The Apostles in the true church were to teach this gospel of GOOD NEWS for mankind to the whole world! Social problems came up WITHIN the new fledgling church that was taking the time of the Apostles away from their commissioned job to preach the gospel so, they appointed Deacons to handle the day to day problems that occurred WITHIN the church!
All the "good works" that churches do OUTSIDE the church were NOT commissioned by Jesus to be a responsibility of the church!
Time in passing, babies were born and unwanted OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Christians started orphanages to rescue these babies.
On and on in time and everything gets mixed up INSIDE and OUTSIDE the true Christian church! People being like Jesus called people - SHEEP, without a shepherd, (people who work with sheep have said that sheep are the dumbest animals in that they are always getting themselves into trouble). Jesus called himself "The Good Shepherd". His love for all the sheep he created is real! But, there are many of these "sheep" that refuse to harken to the voice of their Shepherd and so, are lost!
The true Christian church is not made up of perfect people! God is still working on most of us! One day, we will be releaved from the effects of this sinful world we still live in.
As long as it is called "Today", there is still time for every person to recognize God's gift of salvation from ALL their sins (anything that separates them from God) even though while in this earthly body we will still sin; BUT, as we confess those sins they are included in the forgiveness that Jesus afforded! More and more each day we should be doing less and less sinning as we allow the Holy Spirit to clean up the corners of our lives!
Sadly, there are those people who have so seared their hearts that they cannot see this salvation even though it is right before their eyes! They do so much to delibertly destroy. They hinder many from hearing the Gospel of Good News about the salvation God has provided for anyone who will believe! This is why some of Lucifer's other names are: Satan, The Destroyer, The Evil One, The Deceiver, The Serpent. If you notice, NONE of those names are encouraging, life giving, positive!
Some of the names of descriptions of Jesus are: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Emmanuel, all uplifting and positive!
Choose you this day whom you will serve! You cannot have it both ways!
Those aren't the choices are all! YOU can choose the difficult but satisfying path of using your brain and thinking rationally or you can choose the easy path of superstition and blaming everything on a pantheon of supernatural entities.
Its pretty obvious which of those 2 choices you've decided on but still an American realizes that any citizen has a right to either choice of either question set and the government still is supposed to be equally available to them regardless.
Come on! People have a RIGHT to not belong to your 'true church'! People have a RIGHT to have beliefs that don't include your god especially when your presentation of him is the epitome of everything this nation was created to stand against.
But as we've seen you F&FN people are very much against the rights that were 'self-evident' to the founding fathers. I guess we are just lucky there are still more Christians than Christianists. Be luckier still of more would just turn their back on myths and self-aggrandizing fantasies all together but it would still be a start.
One more thing, OV:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the widsom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things---and the things that are not---to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God---that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord'" (I Corinthians 1:18-31)
Yes yes, I know your sect believes that your god actually doesn't like rational thought. This isn't news.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
So Staff,
Just why is OK for Mick Sheldon to claim other posters are NAMBLA supporters, but not OK for those posters to point out that it is Mick, not them, who trolls the NAMBLA website, possibly looking for tips on molesting little boys?
Seems your selective censorship is rather telling.
Post a Comment
<< Home