Will the President Unite the Country?

[Grgranny]

One thing that disturbs me is that people that say something like "look, theyre all hippocrates in that they say one thing and do another" or listen to some far outs and say they can't believe in a religion because of all those, is just an excuse. You don't go to Church to be like them. You go to Church to worship your God in your own way. No one is perfect. The basics of Christians is the Bible. And it is really hard to understand. Everyone sins. Many really bad. It is my choice to be a Christian, although I know I'm sure not a very good one. When someone hurts me I have a really hard time giving the other cheek. I have a really hard time with wanting to get back at them. We all fail everyday, probably every minute. I believe that conception is the start of a new life. I have a hard time with abortion because I do believe it is a soul. I also have a hard time knowing that some women will die because of trying to get an abortion, mostly by themselves. I do believe the life of the mother is probably more important than the life of a baby, especially if she already has other children to raise. So, I guess I really straddle the fence a lot. Of course, if Eve hadn't eaten that apple, maybe none of us would be here. I do have trouble with "one sin is as bad as another". Seems as if it should be that murder is worse than gossipping.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I was brought up in a non religious family. I was not taught to be religious. the subject never came up. I did look into it as a teenager would look into other mysteries of life. I've learned to tolerate religions including the Asian ones and not just the MidEast European ones.

I do not, however, respect a religion which forces itself on me and any government which forces religion on me.

Joe

 

[bronxgirl]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/14/iraq.landstuhl/index.html

This is part of the cost of Iraq. I hope that these brave men and women survive this horror and return to a better life back home with their families.

Wonder if anyone has told W about this cost.

 

[Grgranny]

No one should force religion on anyone nor should the government on anyone.

I was not brought up in a religious family either. Mother went to church every Sunday until her last child, the seventh, was born. Daddy did take us to Sunday School and we belonged to the youth groups. We knew better than to bring it up in the family. I never knew of either of my parents to ever pray. In my family,
it was never talked about at all. I don't remember the family of having any discussions on anything. We were just yelled at, cussed at and whipped. My mother had a tongue on her you wouldn't believe. Cussed up a blue storm.

 

[Ptichka]

GRGranny, I wouldn't want to streotype you because of your religion any more than I would want anyone to stereotype my father because he an atheist (most of my family is agnostic). I think we rather bring in particular examples. For instance, I don't understand how a person can read Bible every day and then support tax breaks for the most wealthy, thus implicitly increasing the burden on the poor. I don't know much about Christianity, but that doesn't seem too Christian to me. Ultimately, though, I consider religion a very private issue. Back when I dated, I would actually reveal my religious beliefs to the person only when the level of intimacy would be extremely high. So I am not comfortable with politicians just throwing it around. When I am choosing a rabbi, I care about what believes. When I select a politician, I'd rather look at actions.

 

[Grgranny]

Well, guess I will say something that is going to make a lot of people disgusted. I feel as if Bush uses religion for votes, etc. I just have a hard time believing that he could be religious when his actions don't give me a feeling that he is. Of course, a lot of people don't realize their actions are really bad. I know I probably say or do things that people think are wrong but everyone has this thing inside them that rationalizes that those things are ok. I really wish I could explain myself better.

 

[PrincessLeppard]

Granny, I feel the same way about Bush. He claims to have spent a year studying an entire book of the Bible (can't remember which right now) and when a reporter asked him to share a lesson he'd learned from that book, he got angry and accused the reporter of trying to "trap him." Lovely. If you'd studied the thing for A YEAR, I would hope that you could list one thing that happened in the book.

Here's how I feel about abortion: While I don't think I could ever have one, it isn't for me to decide whether or not another woman can. It is between her and God (or perhaps she doesn't believe in God, in which case, it certainly isn't anyone's right to state this reason to deny her this choice).

I also used to be pro-death penalty, but I, too, don't think I could make the decision to put another person to death. And I also don't like the disproportionate amount of poor people on death row. And how many have had their sentences overturned by DNA testing. So at the moment, I do not support the death penalty, though I understand why some people do.

Laura

 

[Rgirl]

Show, Joe, Bronxgirl,
Glad you got something out of Shelby Spong's article. The thing that struck me is that I too remember myself or my elders being able to have excited but still respectful arguments about politics. As Spong noted in his article, this basic respect seems to have been lost from political discourse.

I actually don't ascribe this to Bush but rather to the way the media has become so fragmented so quickly. In 1980 we all watched the evening network or affliate news. Within less than a generation, every POV not only had a news show, it had its own channel. Also, shows like "Crossfire" and the "anchors" on extremely partisan news shows brought in the era of "scream TV." It the so-called media intelligentsia can't have a political discussion without everyone getting out of control, what do we expect out of the hoi polloi?


Pitchka,
I agree with you that four to eight years of Bush or any president isn't going bring the walls of the US republic come tumbling down; however, I think it can set in motion a long-term cycle of one-sided power during which the people on the lower levels of the working class slip into homelessness, drug abuse, illegal activity, etc. to keep themselves and their families afloat. Basically, the safety net goes and the people who need it get hurt and die in all kinds of invisible ways. Plus, the US is only about 225 years old. We've only just begun to experiment in ways to mess things up ourselves, or by our mere existence enrage some other country into deciding that the US should be blown from the face of the earth.

So short term, no big deal. Long term, very big deal. JMO.

Thanks for your comments.
Rgirl

 

[Ptichka]

We've only just begun to experiment in ways to mess things up ourselves,

Actually, we've been at it for a while. For example, I am a staunch opponent of the "Patriot Act" (a misnomer if there ever was one). However, if you look at history and compare it with what was done to Japanese Americans during WWII, or even Lincoln's restraints on the freedom of speech during the Civil War, you see that this is far from unique. Of course, I'd hope our society develops, and we avoid the mistakes of yesteryear (at least that's what most high school history teachers will tell you).

As for enraging others... I am actually very ambiguous about this. The truth is that I consider UN a joke. It has good branches -- UNESCO, UNICEF, etc., but I don't trust it a bit for solving international problems. I mean come on! How do you trust an organization that puts Sudan, with its open slavery, on the civil rights committee! On this issue, I am with Jesse Helms :disapp:

 

[sk8m8]

Dear Ptichca and others,

Please understand that I was NOT comparing GW Bush with Hitler, but rather the tatics. Hyperbolic lanuage is and has been used for years to tug at people's emotions in order to distract them from the real issues at hand.

The quote was just an attention grabber to show that these are some tatics that have been empolyed by the worst human kind has to offer. Anyone can claim such things, however the man or woman that is guided by the underlying principles of thes words would be exactly the opposite of the people using them.

True chrsitianity is "Jesus centered" and Jesus' words are very clear....
love your god, love your neighbor, love yourself, take care of the sick, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, help those who have lost their parents..."even as you have done it to the least of these, you've done it unto me"..."Blessed are the Peacemakers" none of which ANY party has really practiced, but many candidates wrap themselves up in Christianity like it were a blanket, yet their actions dispute any evidence that they are led by anything but their egos.

The point, don't be fooled by empty rhetoric that plays into your belief system just because it's easy to swallow. The most powerful electorate is one that know ALL About ALL the issues and makes a decision based on their own intermal moral bearing. If Adolf Hilter was convincing enough to make people beleive that he was acting in their best interest, perhaps we best learn the lesson of history encapsulated in the Mowtown classis "Heard it Through the Grapevine"......" believe only some of what you see and none of what you hear"

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I am for the UN. If we disband it, we would again have to establish something similar in its place. There should be some kind of world order without infringing on the inherent rights of the member nations. When the UN first started, it was believed that it was an arm of the State Department. The Americans were quite strong in those days. The story going around is that the US paid nations or promised them something if they would vote Israel into the world body. Life was easy for the US at the UN in those days. However, as the membership grew and other views were being voiced, things are not exactly as they were for the US in present days.

Many nations are at odds with the world body, but how many actually leave it?

Joe

 

[gezando]

Well, here's my two cents. About abortion, IMHO, no, we will never be able to have a rational discussion of that issue. That is because, IMO, there is no scientific way to define at what precise point a fertilized egg becomes a human being.

A fertilized egg has half of the genetic material from the father and half from the mother. So many scientists believe that life begins at conception. Now when does one become a human being I believe even at the time of death Hitler was not a human being.

If you think that a fetus is an undifferentiated blob of tissue, then the woman's right to have a baby or not is still in play, and it's nobody's business but her own.

The blob has half of the genetic material from the father, and half from the mother. What happens to the father's choice?

 

[Mathman]

Again, Gez, I think it is the same question. If a fetus is just a blob of nothing much, then I don't think the rights of the father are very important. OK, so he wasted some sperm -- plenty more where that came from.

But if the fetus is a child, then the father certainly has the right and the duty to protect him or her from being murdered. Indeed, so does society through its legal system.

To me, the Roe versus Wade decision is strong proof that people cannot make this distinction in a rational way, and it will always come down to how you feel about it. The mandate of the Supreme Court was not to decide whether abortion is good or evil, nor between pro-choice and pro-life politics. The entire issue was "Does the U.S. Constitution forbid the state of Texas from passing a law making abortion a crime?"

To me, the answer to that question is obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution: the Constitution is silent on abortion.

But the Justices who wrote the majority opinion found, in the Bill of Rights, an "umbra" of extra rights that the authors of the Constitution forgot to mention, but are necessary for us to enjoy the full exercise of the rights that are there.

Is that baloney or is it distinguished legal scholarship? I think the Justices just voted with their hearts and said, forget the Constitution. If there had been a conservative majority on the court, somehow they would have found a much different meaning in that document.

So what I am saying, is that on this issue our emotions, our religious beliefs, and our political orientations, completely overwhelm the issue and make rational discussion impossible.

That's what I think, anyway.

Mathman

 

[bronxgirl]

And does the father have rights when it is the result of rape or incest? Or when the father is as much a minor as the mother?

 

[gezando]

Life begins at conception.

I am curious about what people from other countries outside of USA think about when life begins. I don't look to the constitution for the absolute answer in this one. This is an universal question.

 

[gezando]

Rapists are felons, criminals, they don't have the right to vote, I can't see that they should be given the choice, or "rights". Minors rights are more complicated, they don't have the right to vote e.g.

 

[PrincessLeppard]

I am curious about what people from other countries outside of USA think about when life begins. I don't look to the constitution for the absolute answer in this one. This is an universal question.

Most European countries allow abortion, but Europeans get fewer abortions than Americans do, and I would absolutely cite the reason for that as that sex education is offered in the schools. Therefore, students make better choices when they choose to have sex.

Since my school receives federal funding, we can't mention ANY kind of birth control other than abstinence. So I wind up with students who think it's okay to re-use a condom.

Okay, sorry, veering off topic. But don't get me started on Bush and education....

 

[Mathman]

And does the father have rights when it is the result of rape or incest? Or when the father is as much a minor as the mother?

The father does not. But the fetus has exaclty the same rights regardless of how it was conceived. (These rights might be zero, of course.)

Life begins at conception.

That's just it. If that is your belief, that's it. No possible argument can be brought to bear against that position.

Others don't think so, and you will never be able to convince them no matter what evidence you bring forward.

Gezando, I am curious. Are you against a "morning after" pill?

PrincessLeppard, here's what I think is going to happen. Science will come up with better and better methods of contraception, under finally the question of abortion will become all but moot. Then people will look back at us and say, oh those people of the twenty-first century were so wicked and awful to allow abortion. Just like we look back at primative cultures who practiced infanticide as a tribal survival strategy. Now that we have the means to feed everybody, that seems horrible.

Mathman

 

[Ogre Mage]

No. As the first term clearly showed, GWB has no tolerance for an opinion which differs from his own. Per the constant gay-bashing from the administration, they are quite comfortable using hatemongering tactics to divide and conquer.

The hallmarks of the Bush Administration, IMO, are

*Big Government -- he has dramatically increased the size of the federal government. Bush: A Big Government Tax Cut and Spend Conservative?

*Out of Control Spending -- The $200 billion dollar budget surplus we had in 2000 under Clinton is now a $422 billion budget deficit. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. He pushed for major tax cuts even as the country was gearing up for war. Most of the tax cuts, such as the one for dividends and capital gains, primarily help the wealthy.

*Hostility to civil rights and privacy rights -- The Bush Administration has a clear record of opposing affirmative action, abortion and gay rights. John Ashcroft even tried to block Oregon's physician-assisted Death With Dignity Act (so much for state's rights). The Patriot Act includes a clause which gives the government carte blanche to snoop around in public library records and gags library employees from telling anyone what happened.

*Disregard for the environment -- The "Clear Skies Act" and "Healthy Forests Initiative" are complete misnomers. What they actually allow are for companies to not have to upgrade pollutant controls in facilities and a big increase in logging because it supposedly will help stop forest fires. :scowl: For a time, the administration denied the existence of global warming.

*Disintegration of the separation of church and state -- this one is the hardest to quantify, other than the support for Faith Based Initiatives. In Bush's position on gay rights, stem-cell research and abortion rights, I certainly see a disturbing blend of politics and religion. There was the incident when Bush reportedly told a group of Amish people that "I trust that God speaks through me." When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill asked Bush if he asked his father (Bush Sr.) about the Iraq War, Bush reportedly said that he was the wrong father to look to for strength and that "I answer to a higher father." This honestly is probably the part of the Bush Administration which frightens me the most. You can justify anything if you believe that you have God's will. I thought tolerance, compassion and charity for the poor were Christian virtues. I don't see support for the poor in Bush's economic plan. And I don't see how people can spend hours and hours in church and come out hating everyone around them.

 

[Ptichka]

Science will come up with better and better methods of contraception, under finally the question of abortion will become all but moot.

I disagree. Most people do not have abortions because their method of contraception failed, but rather because they weren't using any. The way to fight this is through education.

Though I disagree with Princess that sex education is the key. We have a much greater percentage of people living in poverty than most Western European countries. Until that changes, we will always have greater rates of crime, teenage pregnancies, etc.

Also, laws in Europe vary widely. I recently visited Bavaria. Apparently, in Germany each "land" makes its own abortion laws. In Bavaria (which is extremely conservative and has very little church/ state separation), a woman has to get permission from a special committee to have an abortion. Usually the committee gives it, but has been known to refuse giving permission to the same woman over and over again. Also, there while they have universal health care, they can't imagine that there are countries out there (such as the ultra-capitalist US) where insurance can actually pay for the procedure.