Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

What about Communist Russia, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and modern-day China? These are all governments based on anti-religious ideals, and look how they turned out. It seems to me that governments are just a necessary evil, and no matter what you base it on, you're going to have problems. But if you begin by limiting people's religious freedoms, you are just asking for trouble.

But if you allow religious freedom, then those freedoms ought to apply to every citizen, including the president of the United States. It would be different if he tried to enact laws that promoted one religion over another, or laws that suppressed certain religions, but he has not done this. All he has done is express his own faith in God, and, if you ask me, in general enough terms to allow people of different faiths to identify. As I pointed out earlier in this forum, Mr. Bush has even commended honest, peace-loving Muslims. To the best of my knowledge, Bush has not claimed to see any burning bushes (no pun intended) or bright lights on the Damascus Road.

I will freely admit that Bush made a drastic error in invading Iraq. But considering that his only real opposition (Kerry) supported the same action, I do not see how that makes any difference in choosing a candidate. Then again, you could have an Independent in mind, in which case, I say go for it.

But if you and I are free to express our own religious opinions (and let's face it, we probably won't be subjected to firing squads like they are in China and Saudi Arabia), then we should be willing to extend that freedom to those who have been elected to preserve those self-same freedoms, so long as they do not enact laws that restrict those freedoms to others.

I see nothing wrong with any politician expressing his religious views, even if I disagree. Why? Because I am free to express mine.

I am under no illusions about this country's so-called "Christian" foundations. The framers of the Constitution were mostly Deists, meaning they believed in a god. But they did recognize the importance of religious freedom and drafted laws to protect them. Thomas Jefferson was a borderline atheist, but he knew that any laws restricting religious freedom would eventually result in tyrrany, as it did in 19th century France and 20th century Russia and China, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran.

But if those freedoms are in place for us, then they are likewise in place for our nation's leaders, even if you disagree with them.

Thanks for wishing me well in my new position at the VA. I work in what's called a domiciliary program. They take homeless veterans (mostly addicts), rehabilitate them, help them find jobs and homes, and assist them in becoming productive members of society. The program is somewhat challenging; only about half of them make it through, and some of them end up back on the streets shortly afterward. It is a real challenge to me, but I've had some good experiences there already. But let me tell you: these guys need every bit of support they can get, and religious faith is vitally important in their struggle. I know this doesn't directly relate to this forum's subject, but I see a connection. If laws were enacted to entirely remove religion from government, then I wouldn't be able to help these guys at all.

I will say one more thing: I am opposed to nationalistic religion, "Manifest Destiny", or whatever you like to call the belief that God supports everything America does. America is not God's chosen nation, but one nation among many on earth that has it's problems.

_________________

Excellent point! But I would say that this exactly illustrates the need for a healthy separation between church and state.

Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and China all should have kept their mitts off of the religion of that country -- they were blatantly stepping over that separation.

They were so atheist (one of the factors of communism, sort of a fundamentalist extremist perversion of Marxist thought) that they became religiously anti-religious.

I want a government that respects all religions, but makes sure that there is a very clear line that cannot be crossed.

The idea of our political process is that one is constantly questioning oneself, and one's relationship with God, one that can make mistakes...one who believes that he is put into power from God is a king, not a president.

Most Presidents have enough respect of the office that they make a clear line between themselves and God. That's why we broke from England in the first place.

Jimmy Carter had a lot to say about his religion. Ronald Reagan, likewise, made statements in office about his religion. Even Bill Clinton talked about his religion (although his credibility on the subject is practically worthless). But when GWB does it, all of a sudden it's wrong?

This forum is about the war in Iraq. Here's the deal: if your conscience compells you to vote against Bush because of the war, then you can't really justify voting for Kerry, since he also supports the "War on Terror" (although he may be flip-flopping due to recent controversies). My advise would be to vote Independent instead.

_________________

Regardless of what "the deal" is, I can find no conscionable reason to vote for Bush, and about a thousand reasons not to. Even if I was simply overjoyed about our fighting an unjust war on foreign soil, it would takes no effort to divine more than a few reasons to remove this clown from office.

_________________

I am not endorsing the two-party system; I think we are old enough of a country to trust our voting to the people, and the two party system, like the electoral college, is a fail safe for the current power structure to keep their jobs as long as possible. The rich controlling the poor, as always.

In a two party system, hopwever, voting for an independant is throwing your vote away. Kerry may not be my first choice of a person to run the world, if you will, but I don't think he's the type of guy who starts a war in oder to seem tough, or to have a better chance of being elected, or a person that wants to amend the freaking Constituation with an article taking AWAY human rights, or a person who condones torture, or can single-handedly alienate most of Europe during the greatest time of need in our country since Vietnam...

At least Clinton could get along with people.

As for Kerry supporting the War on Terror and his supposed flip-flopping (One politician calling another a flip-flopper: that's priceless!), My vote is only to get Bush out of office. Whatever direction takes me there the quickest.

Last point: I myself have flip-flopped: I have decided that Bush is allowed to talk about his religion as much as he wants. In fact, when I think about it, I owe a lot to our President and his political, religious and other rhetoric. If it weren't for him taking so many of these issues to the extreme, and forcing me to look at the uglier sides of Christianity, I would have never analyzed my own faith and decided that I disagreed with him so much. In fact, our current situation has let me erase a lot of my own hateful dogmas and inconsistencies in my own beliefs.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

_________________

Not necessarily. If enough election results came back Independent, then it would wake up the two main parties and force them to pick candidates that better represent the American people as a whole. As it is, with a two-party system, your choices are limited to those candidates who represent the party lines. Franky, there are some issues I think Republicans best represent, and some issues Democrats best represent. Unfortunately, in a bipartisan system, I must either select a candidate who does not represent my concerns, or choose an Independent.

I will say this, however. In this forum, you seem to be saying that the main reason you plan to vote against Bush is his religion. As a Christian and a minister, I must tell you I object to your bigotry. I would just like to see you come down to the VA with me sometime and actually talk to some of the Vets I work with and tell them what you think of their faith.

_________________

And the point is that we aren't pushing for the nation to be anti-religious. We are pushing for them to keep religion out of politics.

And keeping religion out of politics isn't a bad idea. Look at every nation that takes its religion as its law. This is bad in the first place, due to the amazing amount of people that the Bible tells you to kill, but it doesn't stop there. This breeds fanatics. There are muslim fanatics that beleive that all non-muslims should be eliminated. Sorry, but if the USA becomes a christian state, are just around the corner.

And all that harp on about the Founding Fathers being religious: They beleived in a Creator. However, they were rock-hard deists, for the most part. Jefferson was a known opponent of the system of christianity, as were the others.

If government officials were trying to pass laws favoring one religion or suppressing another, that would be an entirely different story. It is not the government's job to tell us what to believe. To the best of my knowledge, no one has enacted any laws favoring one religion or suppressing another. But that is exactly what everyone on this forum seems to be saying that GWB is trying to do.

This forum is supposed to be about the war in Iraq. I hope I have made it clear that I was opposed to that war. My prayers and support goes out to those who bear the burden of this combat--the US troops and the innocent citizens of Iraq. I don't think arguing over religion is going to change their circumstance any time soon.

Personally, I too am disappointed in Bush. Even after the commission has already proven that (1) there were no WMD's and (2) there were no direct ties between Saddam and Osama, President Bush still maintains there were. But how can I honestly vote for Kerry knowing he supported the war, too?

I'm getting tired of hashing out the same old points. I'm not going to bother posting on this thread anymore. It's becoming a waste of time. You guys are so hyped up on Bush-bashing that you're totally blind to the issues I have to deal with on a daily basis.

_________________

Comon, you're being unfair.

We just want a new start.

We don't mean to be 'Bush-Basher's, as the term calls for, but the times, especesially these near election times, almost call for it. I apologize that the American system calls for us to battle each other.

I want to caution you, however, how about the quote that you "deal with these issues on a daily basis"

We all deal with these as a daily basis. Our government makes a myriad of decisions on any given day, and we are the benefactors or victims of them, depending on the case.

I am a public school teacher, where the kids live or die by the money put into the public school system. It could be a case where you put in a certain amount of money and someone will be successful, you put in less than than amount and then will end up a death-row candidate. You never know where people will end up; you do your best and let 'fate' decide where they are...

I believe that is an unfair statement to say that we or I am blind to to the 'issues," as it were, because that is all I care about. I am sure, based on your last posts, that you are concerned about our future, as a human being and as a political figure. Good! We need the facts!

I love the fact that a religious person in the homestarrunner forum can show me positive parts of religion. In fact, I don't mean to put undo pressure on you, but you may be the most open-minded person that can show me any good points to religion. The only person that can show any validity of Christianity or of any religion in this forum.

That goes for me and plenty others in this forum, for that matter.

I hope you don't see us as a waste of time...

In my personal beliefs:

I want people to live! To really LIVE! Life and Life Abundant...

War shortstops that, doesn't everyone agree?

You're right. I was being unfair. I perceived the criticism of Bush's religion as an attack on my own. I apologize for that; it was very insensitive of me. I'm just getting tired of going back and forth on this. I think Bush has made some mistakes, but I cannot bring myself to support his opponent either.

In all honesty, I think part of it was disappointment in Bush as well. After all these commissions and hearings, you'd think he'd just come clean and admit he was wrong. Instead, he keeps insisting he was right. I felt about the same way when Clinton came out of the closet about the Lewinski affair; I had hoped for more and got less. I guess it just serves as a stark reminder that, yes, our nation's leaders are indeed mortal.

_________________

A lot of us "Bush bashers" aren't really opposed to the war completely. I won't argue over wether the Iraqi people needed to be "liberated" or not. The thing is that Bush lied about the reasons to go there.

And us that argue for the seperation of church and state aren't oppressing your religion. We simply want it out of politics.

And even though making a law solely on what the Bible says isn't really really a violation of seperation of church and state, it's still... well, wrong. Why stop with banning gay marraiges? Go the whole hog and have homosexuals hunted down and killed in the streets, order the destruction of all towns that "have those calling for worship of other gods", order the execution of all magicians, male POW's and sabbath breakers, and of course order the return of slavery.

Going by the Bible is not the way to run a free country.

They do not have to pass laws in order to actively favor one religion over another (or favor religion in general). Here's a nice essay to get you started.

And I'm sure I don't need to remind you of "faith-based initiatives", the fact that he's actively discouraging equal rights for homosexuals (and by extension, the continued union of church and state through the currently legislation-plagued institution of marriage), and that he consistently makes religious references in his war speeches.

_________________

The Bible does not support slavery and I'm offended you would suggest it. The only way it comes close is by saying that slaves should submit to their masters, and masters should treat their slaves well. It did not support slavery, but just as we are supposed to submit to the law of the land, so should a servant be submissive.

I agree that the Bible does not say that slavery is permissable:



That's pretty cool, huh?

All in all, I am not a huge fan of the Bible, but it does have some excellent ideas. Mostly Jesus; everyone else in the Bible comes off as a jerk.

Anyone want to spar? I called Bible people 'jerks' I'll take you all on!

I do agree, however, that using the Bible to make law makes unjust laws and bad public policy. And it's happening, right now.

I once did an essay on slavery in the Bible. Here's a few points:

1. Slaves were not supposed to be captured for the purpose of enslavement. Their servitude was supposed to pay off debts and obligations. Slave trade was forbidden. In fact, slave traders were supposed to be executed.

2. Slaves were only supposed to be obligated to work six years (maybe even less, depending on where the Sabbath Year fell). After that, they could extend their service, but only if they wanted to of their own free will (i.e., if they really really liked their bosses).

3. Slaves couldn't be physically abused (tortured, mutilated, excessively punished). If a slave was maimed or injured by his master, he was set free, and the master had to pay him for the injury (worker's comp).

4. Female slaves were to be treated as part of the family, either as a daughter or a wife. Failure to treat her with proper respect meant she was to be automatically freed with compensation. Rape was out of the question.

In addressing slavery, God took a horrible, oppressive institution and reformed it into an institution of mercy. As Rabbi Mamonodes once said, "He who gains a slave also gains a master." American slavers took His institution and perverted it to their own twisted purposes.

_________________

I don't look at the ban on gay marriage as oppression so much as a recognition of a simple fact: only a man and a woman can truly be called married, because only a man and a woman can produce a child.

By the way, did you know that the legislation defining marriage as "one man and one woman" was actually introduced in 1995 by Bill Clinton?

_________________

Since when does child-rearing have anything to do with marriage? Much less heterosexual/monogamous/Christian/western/state-sanctioned marriages? This is a serious question, and I'd like you to really think about your answer before you type it. Think about how modern child-rearing actually works. Think about the thousands of couples who give their children to adoption. Think about the thousands of men who never even meet their children, or never even know they have children. Think of the many, many heterosexual married couples who can't have children or don't want children. Think of sperm and ova banks, and in vitro fertilization. Think of surrogate motherhood. And then tell me that child-rearing is about A Man And A Woman Who Love Eachother Very Much And Go In The Bedroom And Give Eachother Special Hugs. The one man, one woman, one child paradigm has in fact never been a reality, and is even less so now. And saying that "traditional" families "work better" than single-parent or homosexual or polygamous families has about as much merit as saying that Christian families work better than Jewish or Hindu families.

That biology dictates that a baby comes from a sperm and an ovum (not, mind you, a man and a woman, and actually, now that I think of it, modern science can and has eliminated the sperm from the equation entirely) has no bearing on what constitutes a loving, successful family, and has no more place in the definition of marriage than does religion or astrology or auto maintenance.

And if you hadn't noticed, Clinton isn't in office anymore. Deal with it.

_________________

Didymus wrote:

Ah, so you caught my drift with my snide "using the Bible to make law makes unjust laws" remark, eh?

Yes, that was the particular issue I was referring to. I even typed it out and then erased it, because I was afraid of having to start a new thread called "Gay Marriage" and it made me feel silly for some reason. But my feelings are off-topic.

Reproduction is a choice, and for a heterosexual to suddenly go to Webster's and pretending it were Scripture, yelling, "You can't go around redefining words like 'marriage'!" will never be a good argument against HUMAN RIGHTS.

There's two sides to every issue, I understand that. But according to the Constitution, we have the right to do a great deal of things.

And anyway, I thought that these conservatives, who are always backing these amendments, were for Love? For monogamy? For Undying Commitment? For two-parent families?

Why does every person who is against gay marriage always have to go into such great detail of their own lives and their own experience in order to describe why a certain two people will FAIL as a marriage? I thought love was something that could only be undersstood between two people, and who's to say that's wrong? Why does your neighbor's perception of your own marriage mean ANYTHING? Stay out of people's lives! We trust adults with their feelings in this country, don't we? Who of you, when your son asks you for bread will give him a stone?

Clinton, by the way, is no liberal flagship, even though Rush Limbaugh seems fixated on him as a mortal enemy. Clinton was very much a centrist, really, and embodies very little of what liberals stand for. He bombed and starved Iraq, was pro-death penalty.

I sure do miss him though.


If you miss him too, but like to see public figures really grilled, see Democracy Now today -- but hurry, they switch it at 12:00pm EST.

http://democracynow.org/streampage.pl[/i]

[post baleeted]

_________________

Let me get this straight.. you think that people want to allow homosexual marriages in order to fix the failings of humanity?

I don't get it.

Really all that needs to be "fixed" is the fact that some people are being arbitrarily (or on a religious basis, whichever you prefer) denied rights that everybody else has.

If you think that we should continue to withhold that right from couples because it won't "fix" anything, then we might as well deny the right of matrimony to all people, because I see no evidence that it's "fixing" anything in any case. If homosexual couples are just as "fallen and broken" as heterosexual couples, then the converse (and the inverse) is true -- heterosexual couples are just as "fallen and broken" as homosexual couples. So why aren't we denying them these same rights, too?

Or maybe I'm missing your point, because, to be honest, it was extraordinarily vague.

I'm not concerned with making the world a wonderful place for everybody. The world isn't such a great place, and isn't going to be within my lifetime. I just want to make it an equally good (or bad) place for every person. And to me, that means not seeing my best friends cry because they cannot share a legal union with the person they love, simply because the White House seems them fit to be marginalized and treated as second-class citizens and non-persons.

_________________

Counseled? I have friends and colleagues that were gay...It is not really my ambition to "get them on the couch." Maybe this is why most people don't understand gay people; most people are always trying to convince gays of something or other. How patronizing!

You are confromted with daily? What you are confronted with is miniscule with the amount of rejection that a homosexual has to put up with on a daily basis. Not I or you can even imagine what it is like to have your sexuality -- a private matter for everyone -- constantly being judged. The fact that heterosexuals can decree from their ivory towers that a certain group can lose privileges is a sickening thought.

If I sound angry, it is because I am. I do not "counsel" my homosexual friends, I talk to them and listen to them.

It is not my judgment to give them on their love life, and it is not their judgment to give on mine. I don't understand why just because a person is gay, the average straight person acts to them like an expert in romantic relationships. It does not matter if you think gay marriages are going to work or not unless you are in a gay marriage.

I want my friends to have what they are clearly asking for: The right to marry. Their marriage does not depend on anyone's approval but their own.

I haven't posted in this topic yet because I don't really take a stand on the war against terror, but I do feel strongly about gay marriage. I definitely think that gay people should be allowed to spend their lives with someone they love, just as straight people can.

Thanks for chiming in, Upsilon.

If you'll allow, I'd like to make an addendum to what you said. I believe that when Upsilon says that "gay people should be allowed to spend their lives with someone they love", he means (and Upsilon, please let me know if I'm out of line, here) that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples when engaging in a loving relationship, and those rights include, but certainly are not limited to, engaging in a legal union with the person they love, just as every straight couple is allowed to.

There is, of course, nothing magical about gender. The one and only difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple is that the latter usually (but not always) has complementary sexual physiology whereas the former does not. And though I already beat the dead horse concerning offspring, it bears nothing that a heterosexual couple which wants to raise a child is only marginally more likely (and in no way more capable) to have the opportunity than a nontraditional couple that wants to raise a child, and in fact a heterosexual couple is far more likely to have a child that they don't want to raise than a heterosexual couple. Hmm.

_________________

an interesting story:

Our Vice President curses out a Senator with the F-Bomb:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/index.html

And, if you can stand to hear what he said (I'm warning you, it's not pretty! This is not for children!

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/dick-advice-016782.php

By the way, Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. I wonder what she thinks about Bush-Cheney 2004?

Aww, man, I was really hoping for a sound clip. I'll give you two dollars if you can find one.



I'd venture to guess that she feels about the way Cheney feels about Leahy.

_________________

[post baleeted]

_________________

Sorry I'm too old and have too short of an attention span to read the whole thread, but this seems to be, by far, the longest one in the off-subject discussions! But to the point...

We (i.e. the U.S.) didn't start war in the middle east. In case your history teachers failed to mention it, there are over 100 wars going on in the world RIGHT NOW, and there has been war in the mid east for hundreds of years non-stop. I'm actually much more upset about the war in Sudan (in which the U.S. is doing nothing but allow oil companies to buy oil from the terrorists) than Iraq. Last semester I had a student from the Sudan in the class I taught, and I was the first American he'd talked to who knew about it.

And about Jesus' position on war, keep in mind that when he was on Earth last, he was not political (He told Pilate that if he were political, then his armies would fight to free him, John 18:36). But that's not to say he's not involved in warring either then, now, or at armageddon. Peace is not the absence of war, and in fact, it is only through war that we can have peace. More to the point,

Whch someone probably pointed out. The whole "Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild" concept goes out the window when Jesus made war on demons posessing a man in legions, made a whip to scourge moneychangers in the Temple, and called the religious people of the day vipers, mold, and tombs full of dead bones.

My favorite passage on God involving himself in battle is Joshua 5:13-14a where the angelic army commander lets Joshua know that God doesn't take sides. He does as he will and YOU decide which side you're on. Your opinion on Iraq does not matter nearly as much as your attitude about what you'll do in school tomorrow.

All in all, I'm glad we're talking about this. You all think more than most people your age. Thanks for letting me in!

_________________

I disagree. I think it's equally profound with the second part of John 8:11... It's inadvisable to take scripture out of context, IMHO. Much love to you and your friend, who DOES need Jesus' love as you say.

_________________

Buz:

I appreciate another Christian voice speaking up. It was not my intention to take the passage out of context. I do take seriously that second part. But keep in mind, the second part did not earn the first. Christ's love always comes before our ability to respond. "God demonstrated His love in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." I take very seriously the doctrine of sola gratia (grace alone). But I also agree that repentance is the proper response to that grace. The Law is there to teach us how to live in that grace.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, grace is God's love for mankind. It is based entirely on God's goodness, and people do not deserve it, nor can they earn it. It is both very comforting and very humbling to know He loves us, but not because we are all that great.

My point in all that is that I have an immense amount of compassion for this person, more than guys on this post can understand, even though I completely disagree with her choice of lifestyle. Sometimes it's far easier (believe me I know) to talk about philosophy or politics than it is to deal with real life people. I wonder how much these guys understand that.

_________________