Will Obama win the White House? - Sentinel & Enterprise

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not calling for discrimination at all. I do believe at this time, the climate of America does show a discrimation to those of faith. As you read the papers you see time and again, individuals of this country trying to strip it of any reference to the Christian/Judeo thought. Yet we are promoting (or protecting) Muslim thought and practice thought out America.
Actually, going back to the settlement of this nation, those who came here were fleeing religous persecution and looking to settle where their beliefs could be practice freely. The concept of the separation of church and state was not developed to make the country void of morality. At that time, the country did have a moral conscience. I am sure they did not foresee the moral issues we have today becuase of the loss of this conscience.
Your right though, the country was not developed on one religion or another. It was developed though, with a Christian conscience. We need to separate the practice of religion from Christian faith view.

I'm glad you are not the type to have a penchant for discrimination. I could tell it was so from your reasonable demeanor.

Personally, I don't see "individuals of this country trying to strip it of any reference to the Christian/Judeo thought". I see defenders of the constitution working to uphold the principles of our founders and our constitution. There is nothing restrictive about it, for such actions do not interfere with an individual's ability to worship.

In the spirit of exploring the revolutionaries' notion of what you call a "Christian conscience", I offer the words of Thomas Paine:

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?"

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess the question that I will need to send back to you is, Do you believe in right and wrong? If you do, how would you promte good over evil? It is not antithetical to God's will to promote morality and those of faith who have been elected to positions within the branches of the government do not leave their beliefs at the door. Actually they have a higher level of responsibility due to their being placed in their position. Those of faith are instructed to make decisions based on the word of God regardless whether it is a daily decision on how to live or a vote on a bill in Congress.

Again, Xiandad, I want to start off by commending you on your levelheadedness and your ability to communicate rationally.

To answer your question, I suppose I do believe in the notion of right and wrong, but I also subscribe to the idea moral relativism. In fact, I learned about moral relativism as a part of my religious education. If God could not forgive the man who has no choice but to steal to feed his starving family, what kind of God would that be? Certainly not the God of love and forgiveness in whom I was encouraged to place my faith.

But there is at least one major pitfall in the sentiment expressed in the last part of your reply; namely, the same problem expressed by Thomas Paine in my own reply:

If a person of faith, acting with the best of intentions, hinges his/her vote based upon their faith with the expectations that their candidate will be compelled to act as prescribed by religious doctrine, it presents 2 problems.

The first is the corruption of both government and church. We have already seen how candidates will present alliances with various religious factions as a matter of course with the aim of gaining power. This alone is a perversion of faith, but Thom Paine phrased if better than I could.

The second is the matter of exclusivity, which, I believe, was a major reason for the language we see in the 1st amendment. If the doctrine of your faith runs counter to that of another, and if, by virtue of an election, your candidate is able to mandate an observance of your faith, you would be pleased, but anyone with whom such a mandate runs counter to their own faith is basically subject to tyranny. Indeed, anyone who would otherwise be moral by nature but non denominational in faith would also be subject to the same tyranny.

Perhaps Thom Paine was thinking along these same lines when he wrote "The Age of Reason"

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.h...

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not calling for discrimination at all. I do believe at this time, the climate of America does show a discrimation to those of faith. As you read the papers you see time and again, individuals of this country trying to strip it of any reference to the Christian/Judeo thought. Yet we are promoting (or protecting) Muslim thought and practice thought out America.
Actually, going back to the settlement of this nation, those who came here were fleeing religous persecution and looking to settle where their beliefs could be practice freely. The concept of the separation of church and state was not developed to make the country void of morality. At that time, the country did have a moral conscience. I am sure they did not foresee the moral issues we have today becuase of the loss of this conscience.
Your right though, the country was not developed on one religion or another. It was developed though, with a Christian conscience. We need to separate the practice of religion from Christian faith view.

I think the original was lost, so I'm reposting this first reply:

I'm glad you are not the type to have a penchant for discrimination. I could tell it was so from your reasonable demeanor.

Personally, I don't see "individuals of this country trying to strip it of any reference to the Christian/Judeo thought". I see defenders of the constitution working to uphold the principles of our founders and our constitution. There is nothing restrictive about it, for such actions do not interfere with an individual's ability to worship.

In the spirit of exploring the revolutionaries' notion of what you call a "Christian conscience", I offer the words of Thomas Paine:

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?"

Stay away from the weed...have a beer instead...and I think you meant to say..."A dose of Liberal education would do you a world of good." Face it, they're all liars and cheats. If their lips are moving...they're lying. I don't trust anyone of them.

I appreciate you kind words and do appreciate that you do not attack me because of my beliefs. In most cases, people truly attempt to demean me when I discuss these issue and you have been gracious enough not to. I appreciate that.
I did like the quote from Thomas Paine but need more time to review before I come to any conclusions.
I do wonder one thing though about something else you stated. As you may believe,(correct me if I am wrong) that morality should not be legislated through the government, how do we stop immorality from being legislated? It is a tough question because decisions will always be made with those in favor and those not in favor. For example (please give me a little liberty here), it has been legislated that abortion is legal (which to some is synonymous with right) so for those pro-choice, their moral position (I consider immoral)was legislated. Why then would the Christian view that abortion is murder, if legislated be considered wrong? It appears that in today's society, will all the ills in the world, that when individuals (whether it be gov't officials or citizens) go against what was once considered immoral, they are the intolerant ones and it is bringing religion into politics.
Legislation is now being passed for things that have always been considered sin by the bible and society as a whole. Like most issues those with the loudest voices are heard whether or not society agrees.
God does forgive all who sin if they repent and turn away from the sin. He will always love the individual but abhor the sin. His Holy Spirit and those evil spirits that attach themselves to those who continually sin can not operatate in the same space. That is why the Holy Spirit comes to you when you repent and move away from your sin. That is also why those, who have given in to a sinful life, when they hit "bottom" they turn to God because of his forgiving nature. Unfortunately there are individuals,(bible calls false teachers)some in the name of God, preaching false doctorine from the bible. But those who live in sin gravitate towards these people because then they do not have to feel the conviction the Lord would put upon them as they sin. Note, I stated conviction not condemnation. There is a difference. If someone is living with the holy spirit dwelling within them, they are convicted by the spirit when they sin. But as you said, God will forgive them their sins as long as they repent and turn away from the sin. If an individual continues to sin, a price will be paid for that sin with the ultimate price of death.
I have friends who live contrary to what I believe and I pray for them continually. It is hard to watch some of friends and family members destroying themselves in a life of sin. Do I love them any less? No!! I love them but pray that they will reach the place where they will reach out to God for the help only he can supply. Friends I knew prayed for me while I was living a "worldy" life and it took a couple decades to hit bottom and start looking up.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

I appreciate you kind words and do appreciate that you do not attack me because of my beliefs. In most cases, people truly attempt to demean me when I discuss these issue and you have been gracious enough not to. I appreciate that.
I did like the quote from Thomas Paine but need more time to review before I come to any conclusions.
I do wonder one thing though about something else you stated. As you may believe,(correct me if I am wrong) that morality should not be legislated through the government, how do we stop immorality from being legislated? It is a tough question because decisions will always be made with those in favor and those not in favor. For example (please give me a little liberty here), it has been legislated that abortion is legal (which to some is synonymous with right) so for those pro-choice, their moral position (I consider immoral)was legislated. Why then would the Christian view that abortion is murder, if legislated be considered wrong?...

It's encouraging that people with different points of view can carry on a rational discussion without getting dragged down to the lowest common denominator as so many others on these threads tend to do.

Ah, well the answer to your question is a very simple one (at least for the example you give).
Immorality is not legislated. As far as I understand, not since slavery / Jim Crow has immorality been the law of the land. In your example of abortion, there was never a law stating that an abortion is mandatory under any circumstances. There are only laws that restrict the government's ability to make the procedure illegal.

There is a significant difference.

If your example were truly one of legislated immorality, you would be forced to have an abortion against your will and against your religious beliefs.

As it is, an absence of law restricting morality leaves us in the position of having free will to reject behavior that we hold to be immoral.

Another example is gambling, which came close to being legalized in Massachusetts just recently. To enact such a law does not force you to gamble, but allows us the free will to accept or to reject the act of gambling.

Not sure if this is a great example either as I can't say if gambling is explicitly immoral, since I recall so much bingo being played in church basements throughout the land, but again, it's just an example.

So as far as one might want to engage in the noble cause of trying to promote moral behavior, feel free to proselytize all you wish. Evangelize, reach out, donate, and volunteer. These things reach far more souls than laws do. But I have yet to see an example of enforcing morality by way of legislation that does not amount to tyranny in one form or other.

Cant legislate morality wrote:

<quoted text>
It's encouraging that people with different points of view can carry on a rational discussion without getting dragged down to the lowest common denominator as so many others on these threads tend to do.
Ah, well the answer to your question is a very simple one (at least for the example you give).
Immorality is not legislated. As far as I understand, not since slavery / Jim Crow has immorality been the law of the land. In your example of abortion, there was never a law stating that an abortion is mandatory under any circumstances. There are only laws that restrict the government's ability to make the procedure illegal.
There is a significant difference.
If your example were truly one of legislated immorality, you would be forced to have an abortion against your will and against your religious beliefs.
As it is, an absence of law restricting morality leaves us in the position of having free will to reject behavior that we hold to be immoral.
Another example is gambling, which came close to being legalized in Massachusetts just recently. To enact such a law does not force you to gamble, but allows us the free will to accept or to reject the act of gambling.
Not sure if this is a great example either as I can't say if gambling is explicitly immoral, since I recall so much bingo being played in church basements throughout the land, but again, it's just an example.
So as far as one might want to engage in the noble cause of trying to promote moral behavior, feel free to proselytize all you wish. Evangelize, reach out, donate, and volunteer. These things reach far more souls than laws do. But I have yet to see an example of enforcing morality by way of legislation that does not amount to tyranny in one form or other.

It appears we are the only two left on the thread.

You made a great Point!! "Evangelize, reach out, donate, and volunteer. These things reach far more souls than laws do." Those things do reach more souls than the law. One common denomator we have is that we vote based on the values we believe are important in a candidate. I am not comfortable with any candidates at the moment. We may not be legislating immorality but our laws are certianly not protecting anyone either. Are laws made in some cases to protect a society from itself. What is going on today's society should be no surprize because such a society is described in the bible prior to the second coming of Christ. It just shows we are getting closer and closer to that time.

I guess at times we need to step back and look at what is best for the country. I understand your gambling example. I believe it is hypocritical of churches to hold casino nights and bingo because didn't Jesus enter the temple and turn over the money changers tables. Gov. Patrick promotes all the new jobs and revenue the state will receive from gambling, but how about the social cost. Who is your regular gambler? The person who can't afford it. Many lives have been, and are continued to be ruined by gambling (never mind those who are addicted to it). So do the benefits outweight the costs? I really don't think so but others do. You could go as far as speaking about the lottery. I don't play it because it is yet another for of gambling. How many people take most of there check buying tickets and can't buy groceryies for their family. Than as you said the other day, people steal to feed their families.

I know we all have free will but my hope is that those who are weak will be lifted up by those who are strong but unfortunately that does not happen near enough.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears we are the only two left on the thread.
You made a great Point!! "Evangelize, reach out, donate, and volunteer. These things reach far more souls than laws do." Those things do reach more souls than the law. One common denomator we have is that we vote based on the values we believe are important in a candidate. I am not comfortable with any candidates at the moment. We may not be legislating immorality but our laws are certianly not protecting anyone either. Are laws made in some cases to protect a society from itself. What is going on today's society should be no surprize because such a society is described in the bible prior to the second coming of Christ. It just shows we are getting closer and closer to that time.
I guess at times we need to step back and look at what is best for the country. I understand your gambling example. I believe it is hypocritical of churches to hold casino nights and bingo because didn't Jesus enter the temple and turn over the money changers tables. Gov. Patrick promotes all the new jobs and revenue the state will receive from gambling, but how about the social cost. Who is your regular gambler? The person who can't afford it. Many lives have been, and are continued to be ruined by gambling (never mind those who are addicted to it). So do the benefits outweight the costs? I really don't think so but others do. You could go as far as speaking about the lottery. I don't play it because it is yet another for of gambling. How many people take most of there check buying tickets and can't buy groceryies for their family. Than as you said the other day, people steal to feed their families.
I know we all have free will but my hope is that those who are weak will be lifted up by those who are strong but unfortunately that does not happen near enough.

Yes. We don't legislate immorality but we do vote based on our values. That is why pulling out of Iraq and seeing that children are provided with an adequate education and adequate medical care and keeping our environment non-toxic and protecting ourselves from illegal spying by our own government and protecting ourselves from predatory trade deals and predatory lending are important issues to consider as we go into a new election cycle.

It is also important to consider the culture of corruption that has become rampant in Washington in recent years; enabling unscrupulous business interests to take advantage of government funding to the detriment of good, hardworking people that suffer as a result.

These are issues that determine life and death and liberty.

There are plenty of distractions that are thrown out into political discourse as well, which is why it is important to judge whether such things are within the capability of an office holder to control.

IMHO, we have to take care of our country, FIRST, and utmost. It's staggering the amount of $ we send overseas while people in New Orleans are still w/out homes, and roads/bridges are collapsing. And Iraq pays little if any of the costs of the war....

Nip wrote:

Obama is a Muslim! He is saying whatever he needs to say for stupid people to elect him in to office. The dude is a liar folks. None of them (the canidates) are of any value to this country. This Obama guy studied for twenty years under a Muslem who taught ""death to all whites". C'mon, this guy will say anything you want to hear to get into office. Sad , really stinking sad.

Oklahoma City, isn't that where the first terrorist act this country has ever seen happened?

By a white man, no less. Not a muslim.

So Bunnie,

How do you feel that “Bobby” Jindal, a Hindu, may be McCain’s VP, be one step away from the office of Presidency, and select the next judges?

Cant legislate morality wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. We don't legislate immorality but we do vote based on our values. That is why pulling out of Iraq and seeing that children are provided with an adequate education and adequate medical care and keeping our environment non-toxic and protecting ourselves from illegal spying by our own government and protecting ourselves from predatory trade deals and predatory lending are important issues to consider as we go into a new election cycle.
It is also important to consider the culture of corruption that has become rampant in Washington in recent years; enabling unscrupulous business interests to take advantage of government funding to the detriment of good, hardworking people that suffer as a result.
These are issues that determine life and death and liberty.
There are plenty of distractions that are thrown out into political discourse as well, which is why it is important to judge whether such things are within the capability of an office holder to control.

There are alot of distractions. I guess if we leave the morality issue aside, what the government does do is legislate behavior. By legislating behavior, they are in essence deciding what is right and what is wrong. I will also agree that at a time we will have to leave Iraq but not in the immeadiate expulsion being offered by Obama. Regardless how we ended up in Iraq (even if it was to only to liberate a people from oppression) we need to finish the job. A slow withdrawal would likely accomplish this. What I don't want to see is what happened in Desert Storm. We didn't finish the job there and we had to go back to finish it.

I am also not a fan of more social programs paid with higher taxes. That is the history of the Democrats. People need to have responsibility for their actions. I see a generation of youth growing up with no responsibilty and a sense of entitlement. The problem will be that the democrats will, by their policy, promote this continue feeling of entitlement.

What do you think in the area?

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are alot of distractions. I guess if we leave the morality issue aside, what the government does do is legislate behavior. By legislating behavior, they are in essence deciding what is right and what is wrong.

That is, if you equate civil law with morality. For instance, New Hampshire law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe. Is it wrong to do that?

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>I will also agree that at a time we will have to leave Iraq but not in the immeadiate expulsion being offered by Obama. Regardless how we ended up in Iraq (even if it was to only to liberate a people from oppression) we need to finish the job. A slow withdrawal would likely accomplish this. What I don't want to see is what happened in Desert Storm. We didn't finish the job there and we had to go back to finish it.

A few issues here:

1. Obama's position is the slow withdrawal you seem to prefer.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpoli...

2. One of the truly outrageous things about our being in Iraq was that we did NOT have to go back in to "finish the job". It turns out there was no job to finish.

Christiandadx6 wrote:

<quoted text>I am also not a fan of more social programs paid with higher taxes. That is the history of the Democrats. People need to have responsibility for their actions. I see a generation of youth growing up with no responsibilty and a sense of entitlement. The problem will be that the democrats will, by their policy, promote this continue feeling of entitlement.
What do you think in the area?

"And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me."

I have never seen any statistics about how many are truly abusing our social programs. I hear anecdotes and innuendo, but no facts. To scrap the only programs that actually help people based on such flimsy attacks would be tragic and immoral.

We the People formed our government for the common good. While there are a few with somewhat draconian views of what responsibility means, and while I can respect that they are entitled to their opinion, that is not a mandate to tear apart one of the institutions upon which our government was founded as evidenced in the preamble to the constitution and in the federalist papers.