Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Religious symbols hidden for Obama

Posted By: sm on 2009-04-22
In Reply to:

This was interesting to me particularly in light of the fact that he said he was a Christian during the campaign - and when he spoke at Georgetown DURING the campaign, he had no problem with the name of Jesus being shown - but now he requests the Name be covered when he is there.


Georgetown University Hid Religious Symbols at White House Request


Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, covered up religious insignia symbolizing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday after the White House requested the change.


Thursday, April 16, 2009


April 14: President Obama speaks about the economy at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall. The school covered up religious symbols bearing the name of Jesus during Obama's remarks at the behest of the White House. (Reuters)


Georgetown University hid a religious inscription representing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday, FOXNews.com has confirmed, because White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage.


The monogram IHS, whose letters spell out the name of Jesus, and which normally perches above the stage in Gaston Hall where the president spoke, was covered over with what appeared to be black wood during the address.
"In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage," university spokesman Andy Pino told FOXNews.com.



The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and a host of American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events. "Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events," said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement released Thursday.


Georgetown is a private Catholic institution founded by Jesuits in 1789. The auditorium where the president spoke Tuesday is adorned with religious imagery, but only the symbols directly on the stage -- those likely to be picked up by a television camera -- were obscured.


Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, accused the university of "cowardice" for acceding to the White House, and criticized Obama's team for asking a religious school to "neuter itself" before the president made his address.


"No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him," he said.
The White House insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."


Though his advance team asked that the religious signs be veiled, the president himself took up religious discourse and discussed a passage from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as he outlined his plans for an economic recovery.
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand," he said during his remarks, which came two days after Easter. "We must build our house upon a rock."


It was Obama's first visit to Georgetown since being elected president, but he also spoke at the school on Sept. 20, 2006 about the need for energy independence. A photograph of the event does not seem to indicate that parts of the stage were hidden during that address, which Obama made while still a U.S. senator.


Another Catholic university, Notre Dame, came under fire in late March for inviting the president to speak at its May 17 commencement. Obama supports abortion rights, which are considered anathema by the Catholic Church.





LINK/URL: Click Here for Photos


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Right. It's sort of hidden, but we will ALL
nm
Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


Lots of hidden references in that little attempt....sm
at comedy, at which he miserably failed. How wonderful does he think he is? And arrogant: I think they need to put a new page in the dictionary with his picture on it for arrogance! If he would get trying to get attention for himself and concentrate more on those JOBS HE PROMISED, I'm sure the country will be more appreciative and sure as heck a lot better off!
Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I am appalled, and would hope everyone on this board is too. These are the people who hate us and want to kill us, and the liberals/democrats/Obama, want to close down this base, bring them to America, and give them the same rights that we have.




Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

By Catherine Herridge

* E-Mail
* Print

* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon
o Post to MySpace!
o
o

AP

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The soldiers who guard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed say he is a calculating man, a monster in a monk's habit and a leader of the prisoners locked away in Guantanamo Bay, where he's on trial for the murder of thousands.

With rare access and interviews, FOX News has learned new and sobering details about "The Sheikh," the man known simply as KSM.

"I was there when they read him his charges," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Zanetti, deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "Pretty sobering moment — charged with murder, terrorism, conspiracy. He looked at the sheet and said 'I did this, I did this, I did this. I did more than this. I'm guilty. I feel sorry for my defense attorney.'"

Zanetti told FOX News about life behind the wire at Guantanamo Bay's maximum security camps. Camp 7 is home to the most notorious, including Mohammed, the master planner of 9/11.

"He's very compliant, he is very studious and he is very calculating. He thinks things through very well, he plays things out. When you watch him in court, he has all of this choreographed," Zanetti said.

"He wants to die — he wants to be a martyr for the cause. He believes his story is being written right now, to be laid down side by side next to [the Prophet] Muhammad," Zanetti told FOX News.

Inside Guantanamo, maximum security cells provide an arrow pointing toward Mecca to orient the prisoners for prayer. Mohammed prays constantly, apparently a devout man, which Zanetti finds mystifying.

"The guy's got a long beard, studious glasses — he looked like a professor. ... You see him in a cell and he'll pray hours on end. What God are you praying to? What are you thinking, what is going on up there?" Zanetti wonders. "But if he could do it all again, he would."

Even in captivity, he still is leading members of AL Qaeda, who fall in lock-step with his plans.

"He knows what he's going to say, the message he wants to get out, what he's going to have his followers do. You've seen him in court — very quickly people fall in behind him."

Sketch artist Janet Hamlin's brush with Mohammed came at his first court appearance at Guantanamo in June. As a courtesy, the military allowed KSM to review the sketch. He quickly sent word to Hamlin that he hated it.

"He doesn't like it. He's saying he won't approve of it, it cannot be released until the nose is changed," she told FOX News. Mohammed made his demands clear: "'Tell her to find my FBI photo off the Internet, use that as reference. Fix it.'"

Mohammed's concern about his image is fundamental, but it can also breed rivalries among the detainees.

"You see this inside the camps; they get jealous of each other: 'You were in the news more than I was in the news.' It drives [Mohammed] crazy if he thinks no one cares. He thinks he's part of this much bigger picture," Zanetti said.

But the picture inside Guantanamo is often an ugly one. Some prisoners do all in their power to violate the guards.

"What they do is stuff that you and I would find despicable. They save up their bodily fluid, feces and so on, and then when the guard comes to deliver food, they get a feces cocktail thrown in their face."

It's something Zanetti says occurs almost daily, and weighs heavily on the guards, who are tasked with feeding and clothing the prisoners and tending to them when they are sick. Hospital staff get the worst exposure of all from the detainees, he said.

"You ensure that their life is as comfortable as possible while the detainees are trying to make the guards' life as miserable as possible."

Those daily doses of hatred are a stark reminder about some of the men locked up inside the camp, including Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for decapitating Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.

"We have more than our fair share of Hannibal Lecters around here," Zanetti said.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468125,00.html
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right.  If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies. 
If Coulter is so religious...

...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends? 


No, not a religious board.

I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin. 


What is a religious wacko?

Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being?   Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind.   I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable. 


Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop. 


A religious wacko is...
Someone who does not understand the separation between church and state, that freedom of relgion also means freedom FROM religion, sees nothing wrong with imposing/ legislating their own religious beliefs and values on everyone else, goes bannas whenever anybody disagrees with them, and would just as soon replace our democratic system with Christian theocracy.
Can we say religious whacko.....
xx
I am not even religious. I like Palin because she is
nm
Religious Right has already messed up too much in this
and the rest of the misguided 'faithful' to step out of the picture so that our leaders can actually do their jobs, without all the holy rollers tripping them up.
Religious freedom.
dd
You don't have to be religious to be hated by
xx
This was not a religious post, but..(sm)
since you mentioned it, it is actually possible to have hope without God.  Athiests represent only a small portion of the general public as well as Obama supporters.  Your post assumes that everyone who supports Obama must be athiest.  You might want to revise that one.  LOL.
Religious Right and Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.


What exactly do they want a president to do about it?


Take this to the religious board
Many of us do not believe that. Many on the religious board do not believe that, but this is a religious statment. Show me the proof of what you just said.
Religious hierarchy...
I wonder what they call the homosexual henchmen who try to browbeat everyone who doesn't love and accept their behavior?
I am not even religious. Take your useless
nm
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Do you actually believe only religious people think
--
Many religious people are pro-choice.
.
I SAID most religious people...I did NOT say most Christians.
You guys don't rule the world, ya know. Just your little corner...just your own lives, not everyone else's.
Religious Protest from the Left
A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority

By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08


When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.


That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?


Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.


It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.


Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.


At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.


At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.


To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.


Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.


To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.


The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.


Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.


You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.


Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.


There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.


The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.


The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


We certainly wouldn't want a president whose religious
Or impact how they view society or race relations or even science. We surely would not want religious beliefs to impact political decisions on any level, including voters.
Religious people go to church
Religious people who go to work check their religion at the door. The constitution specifically instructs Congress to do the same. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means keep religion out of federal legislative codes. Implied therein is the concept that the nation is not theocratic in nature.

The original poster is well understood in the expressed wish that this not be forgotten and remain unchanged. It is difficult to understand what is meant by the statement that religion will be in the White House under any leadership. Clearly, religious people, some to a greater degree than others, will inhabit the White House and the chambers of Congress. However, religion is constitutionally prohibited from entering the body of our laws and does not provide a foundation for our governmental institutions. The constitution has given indivuals immunity from federally mandates on religion. Wise men of great vision, our forefathers.
BINGO... that's why the rabid Religious Right does
They're as bad as the fundamentalist Islamics...'It's OUR way, or the highway'!

Sheep.
Are you saying only religious people are pro life?
If so, you are wrong.
It's only a "political" issue to religious

Why else would any religious group want you to vote?
Silly girl!
Trying to figure this out. Religious dems....sm
give more than religious repubs, and nonreligious dems give less than nonreligious repubs. Do I have this right? It seems to me the religious dems give the most, yes?

Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs. 
Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.

As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.
Very true. More religious propaganda..sm
One nation indivisibile, no matter what your religion, with liberty and justice for all was the original intent to pledge that you love your country. No religious affiliation necessary. What ever happend to "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "As you do unto the least, so you do unto me", "Judge not lest you be judged", and there are many others. My God is a God of love and knows we are all fallible, but he does not judge us. He is there to love us and to try to guide us toward loving and helping our fellow humans, not hate and division and bigotry that people who have a lot to gain by influencing politics are fostering in the name of God/Jesus and religion. This is the reason that there need to be a separation of church and state in this country. Amost every war that has ever been fought has been fought in the name of God/religion. Do you think that it is God's intent that we should be at war in his name? Think about it.
Plays the religious card?
When it suits him? How about trying to set the record straight when others spew baloney about him? If you were running for office, you would do the same thing if people were saying incorrect things about you, what you believe in, have voted or not voted for, etc.

If he didn't people would then say, "See, he didn't dispute it, so it must be true." Either way, the bashers find reason to bash ... cause that's what they do.
If it were so free (of religious bulls#it), then
Right?
Religious Coalition for Choice
I received an email last night from the above organization, RCRC.org. It is an organization supported by many major religious supporting reproductive choice. A few of the member groups are:

Catholics for Choice
The American Baptist Church
Presbyterian Church USA
United Methodist Church
Episcopal Church
United Church of Christ
Union for Reformed Judiasm
any many, many more ...

I posted this on this board because the choice issue is a political issue, as well as a faith issue for so many people.

As a Jew, I find it interesting that so many Christian organizations support reproductive choice for women. I'm curious if anyone here belongs to any of these groups or knows anything about the organization. I am still reading up on it myself.
Silence. Did everyone go to the religious board?nm
x
We religious wackos in America are
Christian persecution is all about with liberals and atheists in charge of our government. Your little name-calling is not a drop in the bucket. But we will be okay. It takes strength to have faith and believe in someone unseen and that is where our courage comes from.

Yes, this post has touched my heart deeply also. When I get to heaven and see her baby, I will explain why his mom made her decision (so she could sleep nights) and why they will never meet (because his mom refused to believe and stood up for her social issues and rights).

This may sound harsh, but it is just stating what I believe. Just as you have done. I have just as much right for my voice to be heard as the 2 of you.
Stimulus is 'anti-religious'

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”


In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”


The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”


“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”


“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”


In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”


“This is the opening round of the Democrats’ campaign for big government,” he wrote. “We cannot afford to sit round one out, because if we do, they will only become more emboldened and their grab for power more audacious and damaging to our country and our freedoms.”


If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Religious freedom....not for long.

A bill regarding control of the Catholic Church has exploded as one of the hottest issues of the session at the state Capitol - prompting charges and countercharges about religious freedom.


Have you guys heard about this. This is just insanity. 


The measure, which was raised as a committee bill by the Democratic co-chairs of the influential judiciary committee, would allow the finances of local parishes to be run by lay councils and would essentially remove power from Catholic pastors, who would serve in an advisory role. Opponents say the bill is clearly unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment regarding the right to freedom of religion.


Polygamy isn't just religious beliefs
There are others, such as "swingers" who engage in group sex. Who's not to say that they wouldn't start to fight for the right to marry, even if only for the massive tax break they would get?


Religious Fanatics are FAR more dangerous
You are absolutely right. You can tell that just by reading 99.9% of the posts on this board.
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
At the risk of being called one of the religious fanatics....
and lumping everyone together in one pile is not fair may I say...you believe in choice. You are taking choice away from the child. If the child was able to speak I am relatively sure it would not choose to be exterminated like vermin. You want to give all the power to the woman over her body...perhaps she should take some responsibility for that body and not fall back on extermination as a method of birth control. If abortion was stopped for all but rape, incest, and endangering life of the mother hundreds of thousands of babies would be saved every year. What happened to responsibility? Why was that abandoned in the name of choice? If you can speak for the choice of the woman, why can't some of us speak for the right to life of the child? If she has it and drowns in 10 days later, she is tried for murder. What a difference 10 days makes, eh??

As far as jobs going overseas...when our government taxes businesses into oblivion (happens in every Dem admin) jobs go overseas. Because we have the next to highest business taxes in the entire world. That discourages businesses coming here also...and the jobs those businesses would create...as well as sending jobs from here offshore. Or they close completely, and jobs are lost. I have gone up steadily in earnings since the Clinton administration. I am doing much better now than I was then.

Socialism (redistribution of wealth) does not work either. It never has. Cuba, Venezuela...it never works. All that happens in socialism is eventually the middle class disappears, and all you have is the upper crust (govt and cronies) and the rest of the people. And in that case the money stays at the top...it never quite gets to the "people" where it was promised it would go. I imagine the Venezuelan people are still waiting for their oil checks since the government took it over. Socialism doesn't work. It is a myth to get people to give over the power to the power brokers...in our case, the DNC. Be careful what you ask for....
Thoughtful post. What bothers me is that religious
nm
yes, and insulting to religious people, housepainters
nm
No need to ridicule, as most religious groups make
NM
And the radical religious right in America teaches...sm
that no one gets to heaven unless they believe in the "Lord Jesus Christ". I do not agree with either, but they both have the same belief that there is no way but their way. There is no difference.
I am proud to be a gun-toting, religious redneck

and from PA, but we are not any more racist than any other state or person.


The O thinks we are, so why does he keep coming into the state to compaign? You would think he would fear us.  His buddy Murtha really blundered on his comment. If the O gets in, he will take our guns away and we will have no protection at all from criminals.  It's our constitutional right to own guns.


He's a glib talker but what is he really saying? He definitely can't smile or debate his way through the terrorists.


Rendel-D, our precious governor, ran our state into the ground with giving money away to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh mostly for convention centers and sports centers and now for casinos. Why?  He loves sports and gambling. When Rendel was mayor of Philadelphia, he almost bankrupt that city with his shenanigans.  I'm so glad his term will be over soon. Maybe then Pennsylvanians will be able to get back to work. Our roads are back to being #1 on the Worst Roads in the U.S. He made sure there would be no money for road construction.


He promised all kinds of tax cuts, property taxes mostly, if the bill passed for the casinos. That was a few years ago. Where's the cut? Our property taxes went up, not down! No rebates as he promised, but we have 20,000 (exaggeration) different ways to play the lotteries between instant tickets and 3 digit, 4 digit, 5 digit, 6 digits, power ball, etc.


Casey-D didn't do a good job for us, either. He made everyone who owned a service business (that was me back then) pay 6% sales tax on our earnings EXCEPT lawyers and doctors. I'm confused. Don't they provide a service? Sure they do. He also upped our taxes.


Sorry, I don't buy the dems making a better life for us. They make it worse.


I will get off my soapbox now.