Is an army of ignorance more dangerous then an army of intelligence?
Free thinking individuals would never take part in a mass suicide unless they were brainwashed. When a person is brainwashed, he or she is suppose to ignore the use of analytical thinking and just trust the person telling them what to think. This video explains in great detail about the absolute lack of knowledge Obama supporters had about Obama when they voted for him. This is why most of the time it doesn't pay to get into a debate with a liberal. They are utterly and pathetically mentally weak by design.
This is the summary of the answers from the "intelligent" Obama supporters. The dog Blue's from blues clues has more clues then these people.
7.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey). Save us from the masses!!!!
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 6:31 PM
78 Comments:
APPLAUSE!! APPLAUSE!! APPLAUSE!!
An army of ignorance is infinitely more dangerous than an army of intelligence. And it's absolutely frightening to realize that the army of ignorance is the majority in this country.
It reminds me of a country in Europe persuaded by an orator of rhetoric, during the early years of the last century. We all know the devastation that occurred due to that army of ignorance.
Funny, my wife and I were watching a documentary on Jim Jones and I drew a parallel to them and many Obama followers.
Say whhhhaaat?? No Reverend Wright?
Do you think for one moment that these people (especially the blacks) had never heard of Rev. Wright? Seems as though there's a little scheme'in going on here...
CB;"This video explains in great detail about the absolute lack of knowledge Obama supporters had about Obama when they voted for him."
Wouldn't it had been "fair and balanced" to ask the same people who is John Boehner or Mitch McConnell? Would they have known who Andrew Card is? I don't think so....
What about "The Keating Five"? Would they have known about Cindy McCains stealing drugs to support her habit? How about Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff?
The issue here is, that it's not the idea that these people don't know "the issues". The fact is most people, be they Republican or Democrat, vote on popular and current idea's. The "issues", particularly negative personal attacks, really doesn't resonate with the many voters. In most cases if a candidates basic campaign message, and persona appeals to their liking, people will vote for them.
The purpose of the video may have been to show how uninformed Obama supports are. Yet there's no denying that the intent of the interviewer clearly shows partisan political bias. If these same peole were McCain supporters, they woud not have been able to answer the questions I posed, nor the questions the he gave them.
The bottom line is that these people were voting for a candidate other than the one you support. If they had voted for McCain would you still call the "sheep"? Calling the other guy names when you lose won't help. Sour grapes Tyrone?
Hitler, Jim Jones and Bin-Laden combined had possibly not received as many violent threats as President-elect Obama.
Combine that with, "It reminds me of a country in Europe persuaded by an orator of rhetoric", and " watching a documentary on Jim Jones and I drew a parallel to them and many Obama followers" and Michelle Obama was right. This is a "downright mean spirited country."
You guys lost an election, and now you want to make it seem like you've lost your mind? You lost..."get over it"...(lol)
In this video the voters did not know what policies the man clearly said he would implement and in one case how it would impact jobs. A voter should know what the candidate is proposing to do. These voters did not. Neither did the Obama supporters that I encountered.
I would have been able to answer every question posed by PAA. So would some of my friends who were McCain supporters. The things mentioned by him had nothing to do with the issues that people were going to vote on. My friends who were McCain supporters knew where both candidates stood on the issues. This is one reason many of us did not like McCain but felt he would do less damage. There were some issues where they agreed in principle. When I tried to discuss some of Obama's policies with his supporters I got blank stares or they answered with how they hated Bush. I tried several times but never got a straight answer about what policies Obama had that they felt would be good for our country. They did not answer because they did not know. One person asked me what problems I had with Obama. I went into details about Obama's universal health care plan as he stated during a primary speech. The man looked at me for a couple of minutes, then responded 'What else about Obama don't you like?' I gave up trying after this and let them rant about Bush. This was repeated with friends of mine that had been confronted by Obama supporters.
We are in trouble if people do not take the time to check issues out before voting. I spent from Feb 2006-March 11 2008 caring for a very sick father. After Dad died I still had a lot of business to take care of. Needless to say I did not have a whole lot of time to find information that was not a lot of bomb-throwing. Somehow from a few primary speeches I was able to figure out what Obama stood for. There is no excuse for these people or any voter to not know what the candidates what to implement. If I was able to figure this out with the little time I had most people in the US could have if they cared enough to do so. This is not a game. We are deciding the direction of our country by who we are voting for.
"p. anthony allen said...The purpose of the video may have been to show how uninformed Obama supports are. Yet there's no denying that the intent of the interviewer clearly shows partisan political bias."
*****
P, I'm going to have to disagree with you. In the first place, John Boehner, Cindy McCain, etc, were NOT running for the highest office in this country. That said, I could be more forgiving of people not being as knowledgeable about Abramhoff, Delay or Card. But, the fact remains, the video...AND ZOGBY POLL...were inquiring about candidates for President and Veep. For people to be that "out of the loop" in regards to such important offices, is frightening.
I will agree that unfortunately, too many people vote with their feelings...it is a matter that needs to be addressed. However, with the dumbing down that is occurring within our schools, etc...I don't foresee a change any time soon.
"p. anthony allen said...If these same peole were McCain supporters, they woud not have been able to answer the questions I posed, nor the questions the he gave them."
*****
Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you. True conservatives and constitutionalists are absolutely aware of whom the people you mentioned are, and the issues you brought up...and if you were to visit some of these sites, you would see the issues and such most certainly are discussed quite passionately.
As for sour grapes...that is something the left would most certainly know about. Or was that "patriotism" that your side exampled the past 8 years?
mommylovesrj "APPLAUSE!! APPLAUSE!! APPLAUSE!
Thank you mommylove lol
jason "Funny, my wife and I were watching a documentary on Jim Jones and I drew a parallel to them and many Obama followers."
The only difference Jason that I can make is that the Jim Jones followers killed themselves for their beloved follower. As for the Obama cult, I don't think their hypnotic loyalty runs that deep "yet". Time will tell.
P Allen "Say whhhhaaat?? No Reverend Wright?Do you think for one moment that these people (especially the blacks) had never heard of Rev. Wright? Seems as though there's a little scheme'in going on here..."
Based on their answers given allen, no I don't believe they know Wright. I believe they don't know Obama's "former church", who Otis Moss, Frank Marshall Davis or Michael Flagher is. I also believe they don't know where he grew up as a child or even know that his aunt is her from Kenya illegally allen.It's no "scheme" allen, it's just the ignorance and carelessness of the average Obama supporter on display.
p allen "Wouldn't it had been "fair and balanced" to ask the same people who is John Boehner or Mitch McConnell? Would they have known who Andrew Card is? I don't think so.."
They still wouldn't have known those names either allen, so what would have been the point? Would it have been to further illustrate the carelessness of Obama cultists allen?
p allen "What about "The Keating Five"? Would they have known about Cindy McCains stealing drugs to support her habit? How about Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff?"
This is what you are missing allen. Conservatives and Republicans a like know the backgrounds and incidents regarding republicans like John and Cindy McCain and others. We also know much much more about Democrats as well. That is why Republicans and conservatives are the best type of voters, they are informed and "well rounded" on the issues and backgrounds of people in "both parties". This video shows how bias the media is. The media is what gave these poor souls the inaccurate information about Palin and McCain yet didn't inform them at all about Obama or Biden. That is pure media manipulation at it's worst.
P Allen "The issue here is, that it's not the idea that these people don't know "the issues". The fact is most people, be they Republican or Democrat, vote on popular and current idea's"
You still can explain why Obama supporters were so clueless allen. Remember that a few weeks ago I posted a video of a member of the Howard Stern show interviewing people in Harlem about the election. The idiocy of Obama supporters is not an isolated case by no means allen. Also you can't explain why us conservatives and republicans know so much about Obama and Biden yet his supporters don't. That is the important question you have to answer allen, if you can.
p allen "The purpose of the video may have been to show how uninformed Obama supports are. Yet there's no denying that the intent of the interviewer clearly shows partisan political bias. If these same peole were McCain supporters, they woud not have been able to answer the questions I posed, nor the questions the he gave them."
Just like you and other liberals tried to do with Joe the Plumber, you want to "blame the messenger in order to try and deflect the message". Is this a sign or desperation allen? The intent of the interviewer was obvious, and he succeeded with flying colors. It wasn't his fault that the people that he interviewed were that clueless on the person they voted for allen. If you get a chance, check out a movie called "Josie and Pussycats", it's a nice comedy but the movie will demonstrate how mind control works.
pamela "In this video the voters did not know what policies the man clearly said he would implement and in one case how it would impact jobs. A voter should know what the candidate is proposing to do. These voters did not. Neither did the Obama supporters that I encountered."
It's like sheep being led to the slaughter and they don't have a clue pamela. I bet if the interviewer would have mentioned the word "halliburton", they would have immediately thought BUSH. If the interviewer would have ask who was responsible for the "Hurricane Katrina" response effort, they would have said BUSH. If the interviewer would have asked who was responsible for 911, those interviewed would have said BUSH.
Pamela " I would have been able to answer every question posed by PAA. So would some of my friends who were McCain supporters. The things mentioned by him had nothing to do with the issues that people were going to vote on."
BINGO PAMELA!!!!!BINGO!!!!
You nailed it!!They weren't going to vote because of issues, they were going to vote based on the manipulated trance of the word "change", or they were voting for the color of his skin period. How in the world could they have voted of the issues when they didn't know anything that Obama stood for? lol
pamela "This is one reason many of us did not like McCain but felt he would do less damage. There were some issues where they agreed in principle. When I tried to discuss some of Obama's policies with his supporters I got blank stares or they answered with how they hated Bush."
So true pamela. I'm glad you brought up McCain, because he wasn't hot on my list either. but at the time he was the best of two evils but not by much at all. I believe that Obama's win is a major plus for the conservatives, but it's the losing that sucks the most lol.
pamela "One person asked me what problems I had with Obama. I went into details about Obama's universal health care plan as he stated during a primary speech. The man looked at me for a couple of minutes, then responded 'What else about Obama don't you like?'
lol, why doesn't that surprise me!!lol
That was probably the first time he encountered an informed voter that wasn't voting for Obama. You shocked his system pamela. lol
pamela "When I tried to discuss some of Obama's policies with his supporters I got blank stares or they answered with how they hated Bush."
It looks like you got from the Obama sheep the "I hate bush" bumper sticker slogan combined with the "dazed and confused" response combo pamela. Now why did you have to stress out their fragile minds with such simple quetions pamela? lol
pamela "We are in trouble if people do not take the time to check issues out before voting. I spent from Feb 2006-March 11 2008 caring for a very sick father"
Sorry to hear about your father pamela. I know he's in a better place. Your right, elections aren't a game. These fools don't realize it though. Obama is being shown in the light of some sort of "idol or rockstar". To me he is a fade, and fades eventually lose their appeal and disappear. Once the trance is over, people will eventually come to their senses when the word of "change" is gone and all that is left is a hard left politician. This election might as well been called the "American Idol" presidential election addition.
Well if only the Obama sheep would understand that "All that Glitters isn't Gold"!
Obama is like a sleazy used car salesman only he's so greasy he shines too bad the shine is on one so unworthy of the Oval Office that he looks like cheap plastic!
Bush is far from perfect(Bush is a moderate too but not to the same sickening degree as McCain) and John McCain is no conservative he's too moderate for my tastes but I'd rather have a pushover than a dangerous radical in the white house.
"p. anthony allen said...
Hitler, Jim Jones and Bin-Laden combined had POSSIBLY (emphasis MommylovesRJ) not received as many violent threats as President-elect Obama."
Typical of a lib to try and present speculation as fact. Sorry P, but it just doesn't work that way. That is precisely one of the issues Tyrone was trying to address, when he created this blog entry...using emotion to rally people. Unfortunately it is self-serving, and too often, damaging.
*****
"p. anthony allen said... Combine that with, "It reminds me of a country in Europe persuaded by an orator of rhetoric", and " watching a documentary on Jim Jones and I drew a parallel to them and many Obama followers" and Michelle Obama was right. This is a "downright mean spirited country."
Again with the emotions. Because myself and another commentator addressed the parallels, it doesn't quite make for a "downright mean spirited country". I suppose you would rather we ignore, and sweep uncomfortable issues under the rug? Unfortunately for libs, conservatives do not operate that way. Last I knew, the First Amendment was still in practice in the US. I do not subscribe to Goebbels' and Stalin's definitions of Free Speech, and I pray that you don't, either.
*****
"p. anthony allen said... You guys lost an election, and now you want to make it seem like you've lost your mind? You lost..."get over it"...(lol)"
Again...Pot. Kettle. Black. Or have you conveniently forgotten the past 8 years?
Tyrone:
Finally, Blacks are waking up and are seeing the racism of Islamic nations about Blacks. Osama"s #2 man has called Obama a house nigger and the Black Muslims are raving mad. Why do they still defend a religion that says that black is cursed all over the Quran and Hadiths and Islamic world. Black men are now sending for light skinned women for marriage and dissing the dark skinned women.
Foreign Muslims men will not marry dark skinned women. They are told all American women are sluts and hoes while they marry babies. How sick! Black men and women need to wake up. Imported racism is worst than our own. Will we now have to fight the war all over again? Now we have sheets in Arabic (smile)Go see Tariq Nelson's site and here about it.
The title says it all...
Hitler, Jim Jones and Bin-Laden combined had possibly not received as many violent threats as President-elect Obama.
No fool would have tried to threaten maniacs like the three mentioned here. They would have been (1) turned into a pile of ash, (2) hacked to death, (3) shot or (4) blown up on the spot. What does this have to do with the ignorance of Obama supporters? Absolutely nothing.
CB, thank you. I just could not understand how within maybe an hour or two I had the answers I needed to find out what Obama was about going through all of that I did and you have apathetic people like this running around voting for an idea or concept, not a leader that they could define what he stood for. It was a bit maddening to see this, especially with people that I know. Two of them I thought knew better. All I did was made sure that I watched complete speeches by Obama. That is not hard to do when the web is available. I don't even have cable TV. I listened to the speeches on my AM radio dial. SMH
Pamela;"I would have been able to answer every question posed by PAA. So would some of my friends who were McCain supporters."
Most of my friends and relatives could answer any of those questions also.
Perhaps some of the McCain supporters in this video could answer those questions also.
Mommy;"P, I'm going to have to disagree with you. In the first place, John Boehner, Cindy McCain, etc, were NOT running for the highest office in this country."
In "the first place", I said "John Boehner or Mitch McConnell"! In the "second place", the interviewer asked, "do you know who Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are"? But just in case you were unaware, Pelosi and Reid weren't running for president either!!!!
I used Boehner and McConnell as examples for a reason mommy... Obviously you don't have the slightest clue why. Answer this question;
What does John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have in common with Harry Reid and Nancy Peplosi? If you can't figure it out, just ask me I'll be answer it for you.
Mommy;"Typical of a lib to try and present speculation as fact. Sorry P, but it just doesn't work that way."
What?? Speculation as fact..of what?? Presidents receive threats of violence all the time. What in the hell are you talking about?? Even though the Secret Service isn't allowed to comment on presidential threats, it's a well known "FACT" the president elect Obama has received more threats than any other before him.
Pamela asks;"What does this have to do with the ignorance of Obama supporters? Absolutely nothing."
We're talking about an "Army of Ignorance", right? Tyrone's post proposals the notion that Obama supporters are ill advised, ignorant of the issue's and basically, unknowing, uneducated, sheep-like mindless animals be led to slaughter...(to put it mildly..)
I myself, like anyone else of any political persuasion, can take a video clip of rival supporters, and paint a picture just as damning.
Here in Detroit, back in September, the New Black Panther Party held a rally to "get out the vote" just hours before Barak Obama spoke at the Detroit Institute of Arts. The rally was held just a few blocks away from the DIA. From my eyewitness account, I can say that there was just about 25 to 30 people in attendance. Out of that number I would say that 8 to 10 of them were Black Panther members themselves.
An hour or so later Obama addressed a crowd of roughly 10,000. It would suffice to say that there was very little focus on the Panthers rhetoric.
Contrast that idea with these Obama supporters who were in attendance outside of a McCain rally in Pottsville, PA. According to those asked by the interviewer, Black people should not be allowed to be president.
So, can I lead you to believe that "ALL" McCain supporters are like those in the video that say "I don't what a Black man running MY country"? I'm sure you seen the McCain rally clip of the "scared" guy and Gayle Quinnell how they truly believe that Obama is terrorist and a Arab.
There you have it! Political propaganda American style. So now I guess we have an "Republican Army of Ignorance" who believe the president elect is;
"non-qualified because he is a Black Arab Muslim terrorist who wants to take jobs from Whites, redistribute the rich peoples wealth to poor minorities via his surrogate ACORN and install European socialism in America"
(P.S. I can't wait to see how many agree with that last statement...)
At this point Tyrone, I say to my liberal fiance and her liberal friends and some of my liberal co-workers, be careful what you wish for, you may not like it when you get it.
Like Pamela said, they have no points of facts to base their arguments on, it's all emotional. Whenever my fiance brings up something about the Chosen One, I quickly change the subject. I can't have a debate with her because she does not know the facts, she does not understand how the government works and she doesn't know political history to be able to debate me with facts, so I bow out to avoid hurting her feelings or starting a huge argument.
Last week she sent me an email telling me that it's Bibical to "spread the wealth". So I told her to give all of her commissions away to the people below her that don't pull their weight. I can't say anything in disagreement about him without starting an arguement. She even admitted herself that she voted for him because of the color of his skin and she admitted that she put her moral beliefs on hold to vote for him (and her father is a minister!)
I have two co-workers who out-right worship Obama. It's real sad. Both of them watch videos of him literally all day at work!! That is no exaggeration, literally all day at work! They constantly send out emails stating he is the most intelligent President ever and pretty much any PDF file floating around out there or PowerPoint slides showing photos of him. I have told them to exclude me from the email chain. They both ordered Christmas cards with him and his family. One of them wanted me to order a DVD about his campaign for her because she was maxed out on her credit card (of course I refused). I swear, if Obama said to sell off everything and live under a bridge for 3 weeks, they would both do it. Both of them cry they are working-poor (even though they both make decent salaries)and are going to spend every dime they have to go to DC. If I want to start a fight with either of them, I could just say something regarding him in disagreement with his policies. I take the same approach with them, I change the subject or find a reason to walk away. Neither of them know facts and it's all emotional for them.
I do agree that Bush did his part to show the difference between a conservative and a Republican by name only. I'm upset with him for going against conservative principles in expanding the government, the proposal extend amnesity and refusing to veto big spending bills. As much as Bush is viewed as the boogey man, he is not the root of my personal problems. Obama will not be the root of my personal problems going forward.
I will ask my liberal friends how things are going when their college isn't paid for like they thought it would be. I will ask them how they like waiting for up to 8 months for a doctor's appointment if/when universal healthcare is implemented. I will ask them how they like it when energy costs start to go up because nothing is done to become more energy independent since the environmentalists run the Democratic Party. I will ask them how they like the stock market going down further because he is going to raise capital gains taxes causing investor to cash out early. I will also ask them how those talks with the Muslim extremists are going when they are already calling him a "House Slave."
Don't forget to ask those that might lose their jobs because their company cannot afford to provide the universal health care by either going to private insurance or being forced to pay into the government plan. I will pray that my friend that works for a private health insurance company has a job if they implement this. My guess (have not heard) that paying into the government plan will be cheaper than they are paying for private insurance. If this is the case you can kiss the private health insurance industry good bye with all those jobs.
I sincerely pray that Obama was lying through his teeth about what he is going to do. I will definitely forgive him for lying in this case:)
I got a PowerPoint file of a calendar that compares Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King. I have not asked to be removed from this. This is one way I keep informed about the idol worship of Obama.
Conservative Man at the ATL, I say NOTHING to Obama supporters. I just keep quiet. I tried a couple of times as I stated. I decided I was wasting my time because of the hero worship.
"p. anthony allen...In "the first place", I said "John Boehner or Mitch McConnell"! In the "second place", the interviewer asked, "do you know who Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are"? But just in case you were unaware, Pelosi and Reid weren't running for president either!!!!"
I am aware of whom you said...I was simply illustrating the absurdity of your point. As for Pelosi and Reid, I would expect someone to be far more aware of them, being as their names are splashed all over the MSM and lib-leaning papers, such as NYT, etc. It's pretty evident that a great majority of people vote via emotion, and too often, that emotion is whipped up via MSM, etc. So I don't think it unreasonable to expect people would be more aware of Pelosi and Reid. It was you whom stated the video clearly showed partisan political bias, not me.
*****
"p. anthony allen...What does John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have in common with Harry Reid and Nancy Peplosi?"
Hmmm...that could be anything from their leadership, to their stance on Iraq, or possibly having received IM's from Mark Foley? (Okay...the last one was a joke...clarifying in case you actually thought I was serious on that point.)
*****
"p. anthony allen...What?? Speculation as fact..of what?? Presidents receive threats of violence all the time. What in the hell are you talking about?? Even though the Secret Service isn't allowed to comment on presidential threats, it's a well known "FACT" the president elect Obama has received more threats than any other before him."
Pray tell, where have I disagreed that Presidents receive threats, or that Barry has received threats? You had better read again, because YOU stated:
"p. anthony allen said...Hitler, Jim Jones and Bin-Laden combined had possibly not received as many violent threats as President-elect Obama."
That, no matter how you try to spin it, IS speculation.
I think you need to step back and relax...you seem a bit tense.
*****
Pamela...I feel terribly remiss, in that I had intended to comment on your father's passing in my last post. I know too well how much heartache is felt from the loss of a parent, and I pray that you are finding comfort and solace. You were most certainly a blessing to your father in his time of need, and I've no doubt blessing will rain down on you, in return for the love and compassion you bestowed upon your father. I'm adding you to my prayers, asking Him that He continue to hold you in the palm of His loving hand.
Let's just face the facts as they are. Most liberals are ignorant as in not knowing. I'm not saying this to be mean, it is what it is. If you asked the average liberal akA an Obama supporter "what are the three branches of government", they will NOT KNOW. It doesn't have anything to do with Republican vs Democrat. Conservatives tend to have a very good grasp on the make up of this country, and they are by nature very well informed on the topics
I had to chuckle when I heard Obama supporters try and say that some social/moral situation did not change during the eight years that Bush was in office. That statement told me that either they did not know or completely ignored the fact that all Bush can do in those situations is to sign or veto bills that come to his desk AND pick judicial candidates that are bold enough to say that some of these laws are bad law and overturn them. He cannot appoint them directly. The Senate decides whether they will go through the vetting process to be considered for a vote. They forget or probably did not know that many of his judicial appointees have sat waiting for their time to be considered because the liberal Senators that want abortion on demand for any reason filibustered I think all of them. Some of them gave up. He put forth the effort within the boundaries of the constitution to do what he could. I was amazed at the ignorance of those statements. I guess government class is no longer required in school these days. I don't have children so I seriously do not know what they are teaching in the schools at this point. However it is apparent that people do not know how our government works.
conservative black man" At this point Tyrone, I say to my liberal fiance and her liberal friends and some of my liberal co-workers, be careful what you wish for, you may not like it when you get it."
If people were foolish enough to vote for Obama because they really think he is going to "fix the economy", I would love to look them straight in their eyes then laugh uncontrollably. The newly created Barack Obama Market Decline Index shows that the stock market has lost over 1500 points since his election win. Liberal never do the research. I listened very carefully to what Obama has been saying, and I noticed that Obama does not mention anything about a plan to rescue the economy. What he's talking about is New Deal socialism version 2.0. No wonder the markets are selling off. Investors are spooked, businesses are spooked and banks are spooked over Obama and with good reason.
conservative black man "Like Pamela said, they have no points of facts to base their arguments on, it's all emotional. Whenever my fiance brings up something about the Chosen One, I quickly change the subject. I can't have a debate with her because she does not know the facts, she does not understand how the government works and she doesn't know political history to be able to debate me with facts, so I bow out to avoid hurting her feelings or starting a huge argument."
Trust me I know how you feel and then some conservative black man. It's irritating as hell trying to debate a person that is clueless and don't know the facts and worse yet don't want to know the facts. Emotion is a poor substitution for facts and knowledge. I got in to a heat debate with the people at the local barber shop I go too. Talk about a paradise of pure stupidity!!!! They were yelling at me in defense of Obama,and I was just standing there thinking how absolutely lost these people are. The saying is true IGNORANCE IS BLISS for liberals!
conservative black man "Last week she sent me an email telling me that it's Bibical to "spread the wealth". So I told her to give all of her commissions away to the people below her that don't pull their weight"
LOL, I would have sent her an email right back conservative black man quoting the bible
"He who helps those, that helps themselves" and
"If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day BUT If you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime"
I bet you conservative she wouldn't have had a comeback to those quotes. Conservative black man, how about you tell her those quotes as a counter to what she said and see what she says.
conservative black man "She even admitted herself that she voted for him because of the color of his skin and she admitted that she put her moral beliefs on hold to vote for him (and her father is a minister!)"
I don't know why blacks that voted for Obama just can't come out and admit the obvious. They voted for the man based on his skin. It blows my mind. They know it's the truth, hell they don't even know anything about him or his positions, so what other reason could there be for them to vote for him. I don't mind that they voted for him based on race, I think however it was a slap in the face to what Dr. King referenced to in regards to the color of one's skin vs the content of that person's character. I just wish they could just be honest about it. By them voting for Obama based on race and not issues, values, beliefs etc, they have made him the first "affirmative action president" of the United States. Obama supporters are upset because people are actually criticizing Obama. These were the same people dogging the hell out of Bush for 8 years, but now they are saying just give him a chance. Their hypocrisy is so sickening. I wasn't a big fan of Bush, but hell I think fair is fair. So I will treat Obama the same way they treated Bush. I have a coworker that is also an Obama cult member. He has a shirt with Obama and Dr. King on it. I just shake my head and laugh when I see him. It's weird watching people treat Obama as if he is a god or god himself. There is only one god, and he doesn't like people worshiping a "false idol".
conservative black man "They constantly send out emails stating he is the most intelligent President ever and pretty much any PDF file floating around out there or PowerPoint slides showing photos of him. I have told them to exclude me from the email chain. They both ordered Christmas cards with him and his family."
Yeah of course don't ask them what was his grades at Harvard, Columbia and Occidental College or what is his IQ. They will really get steamed conservative. This treatment of Obama has gone beyond an obsession. Totally reality has been thrown out the window and shattered. Barack Obama is the new age Jim Jones. It's a good thing that normal rational people are indeed grounded in common sense.
Obama only won in the popular vote by 4% 52 to 48 percent. Fifty seven million people aren't caught up in the "hype", the "mystic" or the "illusion" of Barack Hussein Obama. Fifty Seven million people see through Obama like a hot knife cuts through butter. Obama's win wasn't a great mandate. If he would have ran against a strong conservative candidate, he would have lost hands down.
P Allen "I myself, like anyone else of any political persuasion, can take a video clip of rival supporters, and paint a picture just as damning."
It wasn't "painting a picture" allen, it was the truth!!! Just like in the movie "a few good men", "you can't handle the truth". I can make a video with 100 Obama supporters at random and ask them simple questions about the government on both the federal and state level, and they will know just as little about it as they do about Obama. I don't have to post anything about Obama supporters in an attempt to "paint them" as looking bad. They prove my point ever day I encounter them and debate them to see how much they actually know allen.
P Allen "Contrast that idea with these Obama supporters who were in attendance outside of a McCain rally in Pottsville, PA. According to those asked by the interviewer, Black people should not be allowed to be president."
Let me ask a question allen. Why would Obama supporters be at a McCain rally in the first place? Would you expect a white racist to be at an Obama rally? What is your point that your trying to make?
P Allen "Hitler, Jim Jones and Bin-Laden combined had possibly not received as many violent threats as President-elect Obama"
Wrong yet again. George Bush has been the most threaten person on the planet not just by people in this country. There was a guy here in Baltimore that had a loaded assault rifle that was trying to get to the white house, and I doubt he was going to the white house to give his riffle to Bush allen.
anon "Finally, Blacks are waking up and are seeing the racism of Islamic nations about Blacks. Osama"s #2 man has called Obama a house nigger and the Black Muslims are raving mad"
I laughed when I heard that. The liberal editor of the LA times called him "the magic negro". Jesse Jackson called him a nigger. Jimmy Carter called him "a black boy". It's bad enough that Obama can't get any respect from his fellow liberals now even muslim terrorists are hurling racial insults at him. Most blacks don't know the history of Islam and the muslim slave trade of Africans and they more then likely never will
Darkstar "The title says it all.."
That it does Darkstar, but I'm sure not in the way your thinking. I also caught Dark, pretty weak attack.
MommylovesRJ, thank you. Mom and I are walking through the process. He is no longer suffering. We do miss him but know he was not really living. It is still hard but easier as time goes on. The irony is that my parents' 59th anniversary was Election Day. needless to say I did not have a lot of interest in the banter going back and forth. I wanted to get my information quick.
CB says;"It wasn't "painting a picture" allen, it was the truth!!! Just like in the movie "a few good men", "you can't handle the truth".
"Truth", in this particular instance, becomes "truth relativism." Using a smaller segment of a larger society as a reference inevitably leads to bias results. There is no absolute truth in saying "Obama supporters are ignorant of the issues."
The idea, Tyrone, is very simple. What concerns you, does not "need" to necessarily concern other's.
Most Americans are against the war in Iraq. Barak Obama's top campaign message was that he'd get the troops out of Iraq. One thing you can be certain of is that, if the folks in the video were voting for Obama, they are certainly against the Iraq war.
So, why did'nt the interviewer ask if they were for or against the war? Is that not an "issue"? If they are against the war, and it's the only issue that concerns them, why would they need to know who Pelosi and Reid are to cast their vote? Is it necessary to know "all" the issues, or what's just important to you?
This video piece is a clear attempt to "paint" Obama supporters as "ignorant of the issue's." If that's not the case Tyrone, why did you use it in your post??? Mau-mauing the other side is a very good way to get your own ideas across....
But if you want to know the issue of "truth" when it comes to a group of "voters", you should look to those who openly admit why they're casting their vote. I'd hope no one takes offense to this next statement....
I find it "utterly selfish" and stupid that some Americans vote based on their religious beliefs (although it is your right to do so). Frankly, I believe it's a practice that's counter to the principle's of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, section 3, states that, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Of course that means that employee's and elected officials cannot be disqualified for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Yet, and using that same principle, it is indeed a selfish an un-abiding act to cast a vote soley based on religious your beliefs.
Thus, it is a fact that in principle, it is an unconstitutional act to "vote" for or against a candidate for public office based upon either their, or your religious beliefs. And that's the "TRUTH"!!
Tyrone,
"Obama only won in the popular vote by 4% 52 to 48 percent. Fifty seven million people aren't caught up in the "hype", the "mystic" or the "illusion" of Barack Hussein Obama. Fifty Seven million people see through Obama like a hot knife cuts through butter. Obama's win wasn't a great mandate. If he would have ran against a strong conservative candidate, he would have lost hands down."
It didn't help that Senator McCain who most of us weren't real high on, ran a msierable campaign. It reminded me of Bob Dole's campaign, plain sorry.
The constitution also says there is freedom of religion. Religious people have every right to vote against someone that is going to infringe upon that constitutional right. My issue is not what a politician believes or what church they attend. I admit that is not the case with a lot of religious voters. My concern is what they do. Every candidate that ran for president (20+) said they were Christian BTW. Needless to say that fact had nothing to do with how I made my choices. I tried to check out what they did.
The religious test in the constitution does not nullify the freedom of religion. When the two blend (as a lot of liberals are trying to do) religious people have every right constitutionally to vote their conscience. When candidates try to force their religion on others (forcing Christians and others against abortion to pay for it with their tax dollars, appointing judges to throw out the votes of the people on a whim because they do not like the so-called religious definition of marriage, etc.) they have every right to vote their conscience.
You can not have a religious test for candidates and exercise the right to vote according to the constitution when it deals with religious freedom issues. They are two different issues. To tell someone they cannot use their faith to make decisions is taking away their freedom of religion which is against the constitution and common sense. When people that know nothing about the issues can decide to vote for someone a religious person can use that plumbline to make decisions about who they vote. They can decide whether to vote for someone that passes policies that go against what they want their tax dollars going toward.
CB;"Obama's win wasn't a great mandate. If he would have ran against a strong conservative candidate, he would have lost hands down."
Puh-leeezzz... In this case hind sight is hardly 20/20! Presently, what "strong conservative" is there in the Republican party? Gulliani? Huckabee? Romney? Palin?
They all had their chance. As you know Tyrone, this election was basically up to the Democrats to "lose." GWB's approval ratings hadn't topped 40% for over 2 1/2 years! The 2006 mid-terms were a disaster for the Republicans. When wall street and the housing market went bust, the handwriting was on the wall.
The Republicans could have ran a "carbon copy" of Ronald Reagan and would have still suffered the same defeat against a near flawless Obama campaign
Pamela;"Religious people have every right to vote against someone that is going to infringe upon that constitutional right."
The only way a elected official can infringe on your right to religious freedom is to remove that right from the constitution.
As an individual you have the constitutional right to practice whatever religion you want. As it is with abortion, you have a constitutional right. If or when there is a political candidate or party platform that aspouses the idea that freedom of religion should be overturned or removed from the constitution, then I will concede that your rights are being infringed upon.
Pamela;"religious people have every right constitutionally to vote their conscience."
I said that... But if your "conscience" is formed and based wholly on your religious beliefs, and your "conscience" tells you to vote according to YOUR religion, YOU ARE APPLYING A RELIGIOUS TEST!
Pamela;"My issue is not what a politician believes or what church they attend."
How about a being a 20 year member of The Trinity United Church in Chicago? Not an issue for you???
Look at it this way Pam, and give an honest answer. Would you vote for a Muslim? How about a practicing Bhuddist Monk? A Sanatana Dharma Hari Krishna Hindu?
Pamela:"You can not have a religious test for candidates and exercise the right to vote according to the constitution when it deals with religious freedom issues. They are two different issues."
I have no idea what you mean, or what that statement implies....
What two different issues? The religious freedom "issue" is the basis for "no religious test"!
As I said, you have a right to vote however you please. The idea of no religious test is there to insure that an individual of any religion could have the opportunity to politically serve the people. It is not meant to force you to adhere to others religious beliefs, nor to have you judge others because of their own.
The only way a religious test can be successful is no one in this country to have a religious belief system. People are affected by their environment and who they communicate with. I guess from PAA's interpretation of the constitution only athiests can run for office and vote because they are probably the only people that will not be affected by religion. I don't think that is what he meant but this is clearly what he has communicated. Basically what he is suggesting is impossible without a complete eradication of religious faith.
I look at what a person believes, not where that belief system comes from. I will check out a Muslim, Mormon, Christian, Bhuddist using the same plumbline, my belief system and the constitution. Again the constitution does protect freedom of religion. Anything that I feel infringes on that right I have every right to fight. The constitution does not mandate that people make decisions void of their faith or any other influence. That is freedom from religion, or government mandated atheism.
I will say this again. If people that do not know what on earth they are voting for have a right under the constitution I have every right to vote my conscience. A religious test is not picking someone because of what religion they are. I have NEVER done that nor will I. The religious test applies to candidates, not policies. I have never said I would not vote for someone if they were not a Christian. As I stated all the candidates said they were Christian. I checked their policies.
One last time. A religious test is choosing a candidate solely because of their religious faith or their lack thereof. Choosing policies is a totally different matter. I have every right to vote my conscience on policies regardless of the candidate religious preference.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. I do not see the religious test for a candidate and freedom of religion as two separate issues.
Yes I'm saddened that I saw that Jim Jones Documentary. The hundreds of corpses is like something out of a nightmare or horror movie!
All I want to say is what have they done voting in a smooth talking scumbag such as Obama!
Pamela;"I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. I do not see the religious test for a candidate and freedom of religion as two separate issues."
You "DO NOT" see them as two separate issues? Oh well then, we agree!
I've been saying that from the outset. Freedom of Religion and not applying a Religious Test, are separate issues! One is the basis for the other.
Then we agree that voting for a candidate based solely on your religious beliefs, or the candidates religious beliefs, is contrary to the principles of the U.S. constitution (Article VI, section 3)... no problem!
The religious test clause was a limit at the federal level, and it was to prevent people from being disqualified from running. It had nothing to do with telling the voters whom to vote for and why- be it religious or otherwise.
At the state level, the mindset of the founders on religious issues are different:
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/Orig13ReligHist.htm
CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, June 29, 1776 (written by James Madison and George Mason): BILL OF RIGHTS, SECTION 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 1780 (written by John Adams): ARTICLE 3. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to...make suitable provision...for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality...And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION, 1784:
PART 2-THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, SENATE: That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES...Every member of the house of representatives...shall be of the Protestant religion.
CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT July 8, 1777, (claimed by New Hampshire and New York at the time of the Revolution): SECTION 9...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. "I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion."
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND, November 11, 1776:
ARTICLE 35. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.
CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY, 1776:
ARTICLE 19: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust.
CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, September 28, 1776 (Signed by Ben Franklin): PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, SECTION 10. And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
CONSTITUTION OF DELAWARE, 1776 (written by George Read and Thomas McKean, both signers of the Declaration of Independence): ARTICLE 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1776:
ARTICLE 32. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, March 19, 1778:
ARTICLE 12: And that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years...
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA, 1777:
ARTICLE 6: The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion.
CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT, 1662 till 1818:
PREAMBLE. The People of this State being by the Providence of God, free and independent, have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution of Government whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election of the people, they have the best security for the preservation of their civil and religious rights and Liberties. And forasmuch as the free Fruition of such Liberties and Privileges as Humanity, Civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every Man in his Place and Proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the Tranquillity and Stability of Churches and Commonwealths.
CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND, 1663 till 1842:
That they, pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded...to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained...with a full liberty in religious concernements; and that true piety rightly grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty...Now know ye, that we being willing...to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights...and to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true Christian faith and worship of God...and because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinions, conforms to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy, forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places, will (as we hope) be no breach of the unity and uniformity established in this nation.
CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, April 20, 1777:
38. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.
Founders on religion and morality as the two relate to the political process and system:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
George Washington's
Farewell Address
To the People of the United States
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html
Text of The Northwest Ordinance
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
"Thus, it is a fact that in principle, it is an unconstitutional act to "vote" for or against a candidate for public office based upon either their, or your religious beliefs. And that's the "TRUTH"!!"
So were the founders being unconstitutional when they wrote the state constitutions the way they did?
That aside, I actually don't agree with the original state constitutions mandating that one has to be a Christian to vote and/or run for office. But just saying the liberal myth of "seperation of church and state" has no basis in reality as to what the founders believed. Yes, the term was used by Jefferson but bare little resemblance to how you define it.
Your problem here is to assume what is a limitation on the central government in matters of religion and equate that with limitation on voters as to voting their consciences in matters of religion and morality. The limitation was to prevent the central government from proclaiming a state religion and deciding who can or cannot run and putting out limits to that effect.
Contrary to what you claim, George Washington and other founders encouraged voters to vote according to their religious worldviews and morality. They wrote into laws like the Northwest Ordinance along those lines.
"I said that... But if your "conscience" is formed and based wholly on your religious beliefs, and your "conscience" tells you to vote according to YOUR religion, YOU ARE APPLYING A RELIGIOUS TEST!"
Easy for you to say when you want to deprived religious conservatives of right to vote according to their conscience (such conscience which is what religious freedom is in America).
To those who ignore history, let me repeat: people of faith were the ones behind the abolitionist movement. Were they back then wrong to vote according to their religious consciences, since to them slavery was sin against God and man?
Pamela: One last time. A religious test is choosing a candidate solely because of their religious faith or their lack thereof. Choosing policies is a totally different matter. I have every right to vote my conscience on policies regardless of the candidate religious preference.
Me: It would not matter if you vote for or agaisnt a person based on his faith...or lack thereof.
The Constitution is not some thought police the way liberals make out to try to silence Christian evangelicals.
It was as I pointed out to Allen a check on the government, not on us. The government at the highest level can't mandate who can or cannot run based on religion. It does not in any way tell us who we can or cannot vote for on basis of that person's religious beliefs.
What happen if a person believes in human sacrifices and run for office? Of course, religious beliefs for Christians come into play not to vote for the person! lol
"Thus, it is a fact that in principle, it is an unconstitutional act to "vote" for or against a candidate for public office based upon either their, or your religious beliefs. And that's the "TRUTH"!!"
And let's not forget how often liberals vote against and campaign against those who run for office, who are of strong religious conservative Christian faith and whose views of politics are informed by their faith.
Come on now, admit it, your problem is not with people who vote that way, but just those who are Christian conservatives.
"I guess from PAA's interpretation of the constitution only athiests can run for office and vote because they are probably the only people that will not be affected by religion."
Still won't work since atheists will be voting against those Christians whenever those Christians have views informed by faith that conflicts with the visions atheists have for this nation.
What allen suggests, as you pointed out, is really unrealistic and not even based on the Constitution as he wants to believe.
PAA I mistyped my statement. I should have said that I DO SEE THEM as two different issues. Let me make that clear. Again we can agree to disagree.
Thuyen, I agree with you. I look at what they do. What plumb-line I use is protected by our constitution. It may be a religious one, COMMON SENSE, from knowledge gained by studying the issues or total ignorance of the issues as proven by some voters. It is my decision. The religious test in the constitution has NOTHING to do with how I vote.
Tran;"What allen suggests, as you pointed out, is really unrealistic and not even based on the Constitution as he wants to believe."
That would be true Tran if "no one" casted their vote based on either, their own religious beliefs, or the religious beliefs of the candidate (or lack thereof).
Many churches and pastors have taken a stance that Obama is not a Christian, therefore a "sin" to vote for him, let alone that he become President of the U.S.
Is this not a "Religious Test"? So, what you're saying Tran is, that it's "okay" for the "people" to have a religious test, but not the government???
Lincoln described our government as, "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We view and hold our elected officials accountable to the people, as we do ourselves, and our fellow citizens.
Our laws and the constitution is not only applicable to elected officials, but to "the people" also! Mind you, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! The constitution grants "EVERYONE" religious freedom....EVERY CITIZEN!
What I am saying is that, VOTING for a candidate based solely on a religious belief is contrary to the principles of The U.S. Constitution!
Example:
The government says that a person charged with a crime is "innocent until proven guilty." When charged with a crime, a trail is held by a jury of your peers (aka, "voters"), who hear the evidence (aka, "weigh the issues"), and then make a decision. Is it then okay for jurors to vote solely on their religious, personal, or any other beliefs, without regard to the "PRINCIPLE" of the law? (psssst...isn't that how O.J. got away the first time?)
Even though jurors are screened, people can lie about their intent just to sit on a trial jury.
Some people believe that Islam teaches that a Muslim can "lie" about their beliefs, with the intent to deceive. If this really is the case, then you and every one else should "APPLAUD" a Muslim U.S. citizens constitutional right to "DECEIVE" a jury, judge, trial, the people, or ELECTED OFFICE!!
Answer this question, and be honest; Would "YOU"` vote for a candidate that openly states, "there is no God?"
"Our laws and the constitution is not only applicable to elected officials, but to "the people" also! Mind you, I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! The constitution grants "EVERYONE" religious freedom....EVERY CITIZEN!"
So, the law on how to impeach a President is applicable to non-citizens who can never be Presidents?
There is such thing as applicable law. Nice try with that.
It is like saying the law on what the Speaker of the House can or cannot do applies to the employee at McDonald's.
The law you referred there dealt with the government establishment of religion. Not with voters and what they think.
If you really think it means citizens can't use a person's religious beliefs and morality as criteria, then your problem is with the founders who themselves stated in their own words religion and morality are essential to good government and shall be forever encouraged. The founders encouraged voting according to religious principles.
They also had laws in different states on those issue that totally contradicted your claim voters should not consider religion of the person when voting.
"What I am saying is that, VOTING for a candidate based solely on a religious belief is contrary to the principles of The U.S. Constitution!"
Constitution remade in your own image.
But if that is what you wish to think, then tell that to every liberal who wish to use a potential Supreme Court justice's view that abortion should be banned given his Christian faith.
"Lincoln described our government as, "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We view and hold our elected officials accountable to the people, as we do ourselves, and our fellow citizens."
I also refer you to Lincoln:
"It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in Holy Scripture, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. And, insomuch (sic) as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness." [March 30, 1863]
"Is it then okay for jurors to vote solely on their religious, personal, or any other beliefs, without regard to the "PRINCIPLE" of the law? (psssst...isn't that how O.J. got away the first time?)"
The principle of the law that you butchered.
The principle of the law was to prevent an establishment of religion by the federal government. It was based on fear of a state church like the church of England was under old colonial rule. It had nothing to do with what voters voted and their reasons.
To try to use the OJ comparison is asinine.
If anything, it should be pointed out to you, that according to the founders, our rights and liberties and laws are deprived from the law of God.
Tran says;"So, the law on how to impeach a President is applicable to non-citizens who can never be Presidents?"
Huh???? Non-citizens? Are we talking about impeachment or freedom of religion? How about we talk about how over-weight chickens can't fly...
Tran;"The founders encouraged voting according to religious principles."
Oh really? The same guys that insisted that no religious test be made, encouraged "voting according to religious principles"?
I believe their "should NOT" be a "racial" test either? I just encourage voting for the black guy.... You should have no problem with that.
Tran;"What happen if a person believes in human sacrifices and run for office? Of course, religious beliefs for Christians come into play not to vote for the person!"
What happens if enough people believe in religious "human sacrifice" to vote that person in?
What happens if enough people believe in Islam to vote them in?
What happens if enough people believes Christianity to vote them in?
What if people held their personal religious beliefs to themselves (as put forth in the constitution) and voted for who is best to govern the people.
Tran;"The principle of the law was to prevent an establishment of religion by the federal government."
Thats exactly why this is not a "Christian" nation. Your're encouraged (by the constitution) not to vote your religious beliefs!
"Oh really? The same guys that insisted that no religious test be made, encouraged "voting according to religious principles"? "
They insisted no religious test be made when it came to the central government. They were not talking about voters. You continue, as me (and Pamela) pointed out, confused this issue with issue of free exercise of religion.
The same founders who wrote this clause in the Constitution that you keep (mis)applying to voters also wrote the original state constitutions. They also wrote the Northwest Ordinance.
Let me repeat the quotes, since apparently you ignored them.
Northwest Ordinance
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
George Washington's
Farewell Address
To the People of the United States
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
"What if people held their personal religious beliefs to themselves (as put forth in the constitution) and voted for who is best to govern the people."
And what happen if you stop making things up about what the Constitution? The Constitution NEVER said people keep their own personal religious beliefs to themselves when they decide to vote.
What you are actually advocating is suppression of people's right to vote according to their consciences if those folks are religious, no matter how you try to spin it. Pamela is right there.
By your own worldview, then I guess Christian folks were wrong to let their religious beliefs that slavery was wrong to vote for abolitionist candidates.
"What happens if enough people believe in religious "human sacrifice" to vote that person in?"
Talk about obsfucating on your part.
So by that logic, Christians should not vote against that person in because of his beliefs in human sacrifices. And if neither side take into his views into account, and he gets elected, then we deserve what we got- a human sacrificing President.
Nothing is worse than someone who sacrifices his own principles.
"Thats exactly why this is not a "Christian" nation. Your're encouraged (by the constitution) not to vote your religious beliefs!"
You are encouraged by the Constitution to give this kind of speech even no matter how out of touch of historic reality you are.
I guess you know more about the Constitution than George Washington who said in his farewell address that religion and morality are indispenable support to political prosperity. I guess you know more than those same founders who wrote the Northwest Ordinance saying religion and morality are to be forever encouraged since they are essential to good government and education.
I guess you know more than those same founders who wrote the 13original state constitutions which said things that would have you screaming they violate your view that the Constitution people to vote their religious principles.
"Lincoln described our government as, "of the people, by the people, and for the people". We view and hold our elected officials accountable to the people, as we do ourselves, and our fellow citizens."
Let not suppresss what is true. Lincoln in that same context also said this is a nation under God.
It is in the last part of the Gettysburg Address:
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Lincoln also referred to the Declaration in the first part of the address:
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
The concept of all men are created equal that Lincoln referred to is reference to what the Declaration said. The concept of all men created equal presumes there is a Creator.
Even in your citation of Lincoln, Lincoln was basing his views on religious principles that you are saying we should not have when voting or when in office!
And the same can be said about the Declaration.
Its own words state our Creator made all men equal, and that our rights come from the law of nature and the law of our nature's God. Those are religious principles written into the founding of this country.
You insist that no religious principles should be involved with our country when voting or in politics.
But that is precisely contrary to what the founders (and to what Lincoln) think!
Tran says;"I guess you know more about the Constitution than...."
You finished that statement with several different references. All except the correct one.
The correct entry should be; "P. Anthony knows more about the constitution than "Thuyen Tran"!
Tran, most (if not all) of your responses are based on assumptions. Meaning that, you are "assuming" or promoting your "interpretation" of what is meant by an amendment or article of the constitution. Granted, some article are open to interpretayion, but with respect to religion, the document is perfectly clear.
First off, the United States Of American is not governed by, nor any law is made according to, The Northwest Ordinance, George Washington's Farewell Address, the Gettysburg Address nor the Declaration of Independence. All laws are based, adhere to, and must be in accordance with the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....
The constitution begins with, "We the people," and nowhere throughout the document does it mention "God" or "Christianity." The idea of "religion" is mentioned as exclusionary clauses. The "free exercise thereof", and the "no religious test" clauses are there to protect the rights of "all" faiths. Not just "Christianity", but "ALL" faiths!
Thus, the founders, and the framers of the constitution declared that, for all legal and governing purposes, the United States of America is a "secular" nation. Which means that you are free to practice whatever religion you please.
Therefore, the U.S. is not, I repeat, NOT a Christian nation!!
"Tran, most (if not all) of your responses are based on assumptions. Meaning that, you are "assuming" or promoting your "interpretation" of what is meant by an amendment or article of the constitution."
Assuming is what you excel at. What you don't excel at is dealing with the evidence that shows YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Constitution is dead wrong.
You assume the religious test oath means that voters cannot let the religious principles help determine who they vote for. An assumption not supported by anything the founders said or did in regards to voters.
An assumption that is contradicted by facts.
"Granted, some article are open to interpretayion, but with respect to religion, the document is perfectly clear."
So clear that you presume to know and understand the Constitution more than the father of our country, George Washington. And the other founders. You seem to forget the same founders who wrote the religious test oath clause in the Constitution were also the same ones who wrote the NW Ordinance and also the same ones who gave us the original state constitutions.
What is perfectly clear to me and others here is that you errenously apply the religious test oath that is check on the central government and say the voters are bound by that. To put it bluntly, you butchered the Constitution to demand Christians cannot vote according to their religious convictions.
Would you demand the same of abolitionists back in those days since they were Christians and believed slavery was sinful and thus let their religious views guided them there in voting and other political works on the issue?
What you claim is not anyway close to proper interpretation of the Constitution.
None of the founders stated anything remotely close to what you claim about voters needing not to vote according to religious principles. Not even Jefferson.
You are simply making up your own "facts" as you go along, and then demand people go along with your interpretation of the Constitution, that is more guided by misguided liberal thinking of this day and age then anything the founders envisioned.
"First off, the United States Of American is not governed by, nor any law is made according to, The Northwest Ordinance, George Washington's Farewell Address, the Gettysburg Address nor the Declaration of Independence."
Before I rebut that, it's too funny you now dismiss the Gettsyburg Address, given you cited part of it where Lincoln said the government is of the people, etc. (now that I cited in full context to show he believed this nation is under God in that same context). You used the quote from the address to "prove" your case on what the Constitution, but apparently it was worthless all along, so in other words, you should not have used it in the first place. Like I said, too funny.
And first off, the very basis for the Constitution that we have, is the Declaration, according to the founders. What is stated in regards to life, liberty, and property are principles already set forth in the Declaration.
Secondly, the Declaration was our opening document as to our foundation. It had God as witness. The Constitution was compact that resulted. Get some facts on covenant/compact theory of law before you make the argument the Declaration and the Constitution were unrelated documents. The two are related and goes hand in hand as to how we are as a country when founded.
Thirdly, the Constitution was written as I said before by the very same men who gave us the NW Ordinance and original state constitutions. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention.
Fourthly, you forget that before the Constitution there was the Article of Confederation which was our original constitution. And it did have God as our witness. The Constitution, to be sure, that replaced it, did not mention God. But issue of religion was not why the Articles of Confederation was replaced but lack of power for central government to keep nation together. The founders did not dismiss God out of country, as you want to claim.
"All laws are based, adhere to, and must be in accordance with the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES...."
Apparently, according to you, the same founders who gave us the Constitution lacked understanding of that Constitution that they also wrote the original state constitutions and that they also gave us the NW Ordinance in ways you say violate the Constitution. And that those like Washington said what was already stated in the ordinance about religion and morality that violated the Constitution. It just never occurred to you that the founders understand their own document more than you do.
If those laws that you said were so lacking in unconstitutionality, how come they were not challenged to the Supreme Court BACK THEN?
How come people did not object to Washington's Farewell Address back then on religion and morality?
"The constitution begins with, "We the people," and nowhere throughout the document does it mention "God" or "Christianity.""
Uh, where did the idea of "we the people" come from? Like I said, do a study of covenant/compact theory of government. "We the people" is an idea that Puritans had from their reading of the Bible. It is a statement of people forming together to make a government, and in one voice, declare they do ordain. It is also found in Exodus as well as other Mosaic writings in the OT.
That is why the Constitution, as well as the Article, were true follow-up to the Declaration. The Declaration had God as witness they were forming a new nation. The Constitution gave the nation its structure with "we the people."
And you are forgetting the Articles of Confederation DID mention God. The founders already made the nation under God.
How many times do the founders have to say God to make their point that this nation is under God? They already did it with several founding documents before the Constitution, most notably the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation (not to mention the original state constitutions).
"The idea of "religion" is mentioned as exclusionary clauses. The "free exercise thereof", and the "no religious test" clauses are there to protect the rights of "all" faiths. Not just "Christianity", but "ALL" faiths!"
You demanding that the religious test oath means voters cannot vote according to their religious consciences is you DEMANDING that the government restrict free exercise of religion of Christians.
Besides, the first amendment, as well as the religious test oath, were checks on the central government. The first amendment referred to checks on what Congress can do in regards to religion. The tenth amendment gave states freedom in religion among other matters.
"Thus, the founders, and the framers of the constitution declared that, for all legal and governing purposes, the United States of America is a "secular" nation. Which means that you are free to practice whatever religion you please."
"Secular" so much that the very founders had no problem saying religion and morality should be forever encouraged so many times, and wrote such laws in the original state constitutions.
"Therefore, the U.S. is not, I repeat, NOT a Christian nation!!"
If you wish to throw the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, Washington's farewell address, the Northwest Ordinance, the original state constitutions, etc., as evidences of what the founders in general think of how our country was in the beginning.
More evidence at what our founding fathers think:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/wash1.asp
First Inaugural Address of George Washington
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1789
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/gwproc01.asp
George Washington - Thanksgiving Proclamation
PROCLAMATION.
A NATIONAL THANKSGIVING.
[From Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII, p. Tl9.]
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me " to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness: "
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
- Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October,
John Adam in his first inagural address said: "if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.
With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence."
Ignore the "first" in my statement about Adams' address by the way. He was elected only once. But my point remains.
And also my point goes for Jefferson (who I know seculars love to use for their arguments for "seperation of church and state."
The same Jefferson who Bibles printed while in role of President to be sent for missionary work to Native Americans, and authoritized public buildings in the capital for worship services!
None of the founders were true secularists as you wish them to be.
Since you wish to claim the framers of the Constitution did not believe in religion should be involved in public life, here is some proof at what took place at the Constitutional Convention:
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/21/Benjamin_Franklins_Request_for_Prayers_at_the_Constitutional__1.html
The Constitutional Convention had been meeting for five weeks, and had hit a perilous deadlock. The large states were insisting that congressional representation be based on population; the smaller states wanted a one-state-one-vote rule. The entire effort to create a stronger union was in jeopardy. Eighty-one-year-old Benjamin Franklin, quiet during most of the deliberations, then addressed the group. According to James Madison's notes, here is what happened next.
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.
To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-
Mr. SHARMAN seconded the motion.
Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, I. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. SHERMAN & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission-that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. RANDOLPH proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; & thenceforward prayers be used in ye. Convention every morning. Dr. FRANKn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.
The only thing that can be said even the most ardent of founders for "seperation of church and state" like Jefferson and Madison was that they believed that the government should not do anything to favor one religion over another. But they said nothing against people voting their consciences as guided by their religious principles.
And as pointed out, Jefferson had no problem speaking of religious principles in public when for example writing notes for state of Virginia. His words there said:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/14102.html
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
Apparently, our first chief justice John Jay thought we were a Christian nation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay#cite_note-68
In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray ,dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."[69]
Tran, I'm talking about the constitution, nothing else...
Henceforth, all my references shall pertain only to the Constitution Of The United States.
Tran;"Assuming is what you excel at. What you don't excel at is dealing with the evidence that shows YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Constitution is dead wrong."
Then show me where "God" or "Christianty" is mentioned in the constitution... You can't, so who's wrong...
Tran:"You seem to forget the same founders who wrote the religious test oath clause in the Constitution were also the same ones who wrote the NW Ordinance and also the same ones who gave us the original state constitutions."
We are not governed by the NW ordinance nor state constitutions, So, show me where in the U.S. Constitution that says we are....you can't, so you're wrong..
Tran;"Would you demand the same of abolitionists back in those days since they were Christians and believed slavery was sinful...ect.."
Slavery existed in America for almost 170 years before the constitution was written. Christianity existed for thousands of year and was brought over to America from Europe.
Slavery is mentioned in the constitution but Christianity is not....So what's your point? As typical, there is no point to your statement...
Tran;"You are simply making up your own "facts" as you go along, and then demand people go along with your interpretation of the Constitution, that is more guided by misguided liberal thinking of this day and ..."
Again, show me where "Christianity" is mentioned in the constitution. You cant... So what am I making up?
The constitution is the law of the land, is it not? If the framers of the constitution thought that your rights as an American citizen were given to you by "God", they would have spelled it out and included the word "God" in the constitution. "God" is not mentioned, so, anything else pertaiing to Christianity and how it applies to the constitution is "ASSUMPTION", and you can't prove otherwise.
Tran;"If those laws that you said were so lacking in unconstitutionality, how come they were not challenged to the Supreme Court BACK THEN?"
I never said voting according to you religious beliefs was unconstitutional. I said "VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE BASED ON YOUR, OR THE CANDIDATES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, NULLIFIES A "PRINCIPLE" OF THE RELIGIOUS TEST CLAUSE.
Copy and paste where I said the it was "unconstitutional" to vote according to religious beliefs... you cant, so again you're assuming as usual...
Tran;"How many times do the founders have to say God to make their point that this nation is under God?"
ONCE! Just one time is all it need be said. If it appears just one time, I will totally agree with you, concede to you that you are correct, and self-deprecate everything I have posted, and will post in the future.
Tran;"More evidence at what our founding fathers think:
As I said from the outset, if it's not in the constitution you're wasting you time discussing it with me...(like the rest of the stuff you posted)
"As I said from the outset, if it's not in the constitution you're wasting you time discussing it with me...(like the rest of the stuff you posted)"
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You were the one citing Lincoln to try to make your case about the Constitution, only to have that backfired on you.
That is when I pointed out the comments you cited from Lincoln was from the Gettysburg Address, which in the same context said we are a nation under God.
"Then show me where "God" or "Christianty" is mentioned in the constitution... You can't, so who's wrong..."
You are still.
You are the one who fabricated the claim that the Constitution stating no religious test oath mean the voters cannot vote according to their religious principles (meaning according to you, abolitionists were wrong to vote according to their religious principles slavery is sinful).
The Constitution was speaking of religious test oath done by the government. It said NOTHING about voters cannot vote their consciences, religious or not. You
And guess what?
You used the Constitution as your proof that this country was not founded on Godly principles.
Guess what?
This country when it was founded did not start with the Constitution. It was declared independent and thus became a nation the moment the Declaration of Independence was issue. It was officially recognized as independent with the Treaty of Paris, which both nations signed and which recognized our Triune God.
And the first law of the land was the Articles of Confederation which did mention God.
Even if you are right (though you are not) the Constitution intended for this country to be purely secular, you would still be dead wrong in saying this country started as purely secular. The best you can argue based on your warped view of the Constitution was that this country started as a religious nation then that changed with the Constitution.
"Slavery is mentioned in the constitution but Christianity is not....So what's your point? As typical, there is no point to your statement..."
As typical, when you can't actually interact or rebut, pretend I didn't make a point then get around that. Not honest of you.
My point is clear. It is that the abolitionist movements in England and America were Christian-driven.
I was pointing out that if voters cannot let their religious principles guide their vote, then abolitionists would be wrong to vote against slavery out of their principles guided by their religious faith.
Of course, when the point is clear but you can't rebut it, obsfucate the issue as you do by saying Christianity was around for 2000 years and that slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution, as if it somehow has anything to do with my point about religious principles guiding the voting of those against slavery back then.
The person who has no point is you.
So when you throw out the "typical" remark at me saying I have no point, my response.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
"Again, show me where "Christianity" is mentioned in the constitution. You cant... So what am I making up?"
You are making up the claim we cannot let our religious principles guide uhen we look at candidates as to what the religious test oath means.
And I don't need to the Constitution to have the word Christianity or God to know it is guided by both. In fact, alot of religious principles were behind many aspects of the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights.
And another reason I don't need to is because back then the founders didn't have to write God or Christianity for people living BACK THEN to know their country was a religious country. It is only liberals today who try to twist that to fraudulently claim the framers for themselves.
"The constitution is the law of the land, is it not? If the framers of the constitution thought that your rights as an American citizen were given to you by "God", they would have spelled it out and included the word "God" in the constitution. "God" is not mentioned, so, anything else pertaiing to Christianity and how it applies to the constitution is "ASSUMPTION", and you can't prove otherwise."
And the Constitution said it was secular either.
If you want to play silly games and say where is the word God or Christianity, I can turn around and say the same about the word secular, too.
I have quotes from those very founders on what their intentions and beliefs were on the Constitution.
You are simply dismissing them and then claiming they don't believe that since they didn't mention the word God or Christiantiy in the Constitution.
You are talking out of two sides of your mouth here.
You want us to take at your word on the intentions of the founders in regards to the Constitution but when their words are cited as to their intentions and how they understand religion as it relates to the Constitution, you dismiss them.
"Copy and paste where I said the it was "unconstitutional" to vote according to religious beliefs... you cant, so again you're assuming as usual..."
Let me go through some of your posts on what you actually said:
"Oh really? The same guys that insisted that no religious test be made, encouraged "voting according to religious principles"?"
And here is where you really said it:
"What if people held their personal religious beliefs to themselves (as put forth in the constitution) and voted for who is best to govern the people."
I can't?
Looks like not only can I, but also I did.
I didn't assume. You put a foot in your mouth and then throw the "typical" charge of me assuming, as if you are above that.
"As I said from the outset, if it's not in the constitution you're wasting you time discussing it with me...(like the rest of the stuff you posted)"
In other words, the founders who gave us the Constitution should not be cited according to you on these religious issues to show what they actually believe what is constitutional or not.
If you are going to say whatever is not in the Constitution should not be used as evidence, guess what?
Your words and views are not in the Constitution either and I should dismiss them as well!
And if you do claim you are simply stating what the Constitution said on matters of religion, guess what?
You didn't allow the same courtesy to the very founders, who gave us the Constitution, to show their own beliefs on what is constitutional in regards to religion.
It basically boils down to this.
I cited Washington, Adams, even Jefferson, the very three Presidents of our country, two of which were part of the constitutional process, and the third who was as diehard on "seperation of church and state."
Your response is to dismiss them since their words were not in the Constitution.
In other words, you are saying you know what the Constitution means more than they do, and that when they said those words, they lacked understanding of what the Constitution said.
"We are not governed by the NW ordinance nor state constitutions, So, show me where in the U.S. Constitution that says we are....you can't, so you're wrong.."
The Constitution established the central government and provided powers for it and checks on those powers, while providing, as with the tenth amendment, states the powers to make their own state laws.
So, Americans lived under both federal and state laws. That is true today as well.
So the original state constitutions were just as valid for the American as the US Constitution was. The US Constitution dealt with the issues at the federal level, and allowed for issues not at the federal level to be dealt with by the states.
So in regards to the states, you are dead wrong. Citizens operated under both laws- federal AND state.
And in regards to the NW Ordinance, I didn't say that it was the law of the land that trumped the Constitution.
I cited it to show what the framers, who gave us the Constitution, think on those issues.
You are the one claiming that the framers not using the word God and Christianity mean they wanted a secular nation (ignoring the fact that just about EVERY other major founding documents encouraged America to be a religious, moralitic nation).
Basically, you claim to be able to read their minds based on that, since you can't accept anything they say whether in writings, speeches, or in political laws they made, that were not in the Constitution.
And you also wrong on another level. The Northwest Ordinance did governed parts of the US, particularly the Northwest Territory, in how lands there can become states back then.
And it first passed prior to the Constitution. And again passed once the Constitution was already ratified.
And let's get one thing straight- I didn't cite those founders and documents like NW Ordinance, the state constitutions, presidential addresses, etc., in founding period, to say those are the law of the land. I cited them as EVIDENCE as to how they understood the Constitution back then.
Your problem is with those SAME founders who gave us the Constitution.
Basically, you appeal to them trying to claim from what they wrote in the Constitution, on religious test oath, but turn around and take dismissive attitude towards them when it is shown that they don't understand the Constitution as you do.
Feel free to dismiss everything that is cited as evidence just because those writings are not actually in the Constitution.
It is an anti-intellectual approach you are taking, where you profess to infallibly read the Constitution on religious test oath (saying you know what it means and everyone else here are just "assuming" as if you don't assume yourself), and disregard any evidence that don't support your claim.
It is a bad habit I have seen some fundamental Christians do when they make a bad claim about church history to try to make their views out to be taught in early church history, and then when disproven by facts and evidences in early church history, they turn around and say they don't care what men say, but only what the Bible say (insincerely).
You saying you don't care for any evidence back then, on how the founders operated with the Constitution they have, is along those types of anti-intellectual attitude.
And that's not a good thing.
"ONCE! Just one time is all it need be said. If it appears just one time, I will totally agree with you, concede to you that you are correct, and self-deprecate everything I have posted, and will post in the future."
The founders mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence, the state constitutions, Treaty of Paris with England, the original constitution, the Articles of Confederation. etc.
In other words, you are asking them to restate God in the Constitution, when they already mention God as the source of their laws and existence like half a million times!
Do tell why they need to mention God in the Constitution again to prove that the country was a nation under God, when they already have done so many, many times?
You are reading the Constitution through liberal lenses of our time, not the period in time when the founders lived and died.
If the founders had already mentioned God in their documents so many times, does it require them to mention God in the Constitution for the population back then to know they were a nation under God?
"And the Constitution said it was secular either."
I meant the Constitution did not say it was secular either.
Like I said, if we want to play word games, I can point that out, too.
"God" is not mentioned, so, anything else pertaiing to Christianity and how it applies to the constitution is "ASSUMPTION", and you can't prove otherwise."
Assumption? I based my words on what the founders I cited said.
But since you want to play that card, then I guess by your logic, George Washington was just making an assumption when he spoke of religion and morality in regards to our government, and he cannot prove otherwise.
I guess by your logic, John Adams was making an assumption when he said our Constitution was for a religious people, and he cannot prove otherwise.
I guess by your logic, Jefferson was making an assumption when he spoke of our rights come from God, and he cannot prove otherwise.
I guess by your logic, the founders who also wrote the Articles of Confederation (the constitution before the Constitution) were making an assumption this nation was under God, and they cannot prove otherwise.
I guess by your logic, the founders who wrote into law in the Northwest Ordinance in regards to religion and morality and saw no inconsistency there with the Constitution, were all just making an assumption and cannot prove otherwise.
If that is your argument, then let's be consistent.
You are going to have to say much, if not everything the founders, did in regards to religion and morality violated the religious test oath according to your version of it, and thus they don't understand the Constitution as much as you do.
So is right about the Constitution? You? Or the founders as their testimonies and writings are provided on what they believe about religion and morality back then?
I take what the founders say over you. Sorry, but the founders would have a better understanding of what they mean in regards to the religious clauses in the Constitution.
Saying on your part that is clear your view is right and any disagreement with you is assumption on our part IS simply ASSUMPTION on your part.
For me to assume would mean I don't have any fact to back up what I said about what the founders thought on the Constitution's religious clauses. The fact is I provided tons of it. You provided ZERO.
You don't have history on your side at all, nor do you attempt to provide any. It is no wonder you dismiss every citations that is cited especially political documents from those very founders who wrote the Constitution.
The fact is simply, they don't agree with you.
Tran, I asked you to show me where I said;"that it was "unconstitutional" to vote according to religious beliefs"
You responded with these quotes that I had earlier stated;
"Oh really? The same guys that insisted that no religious test be made, encouraged "voting according to religious principles"?"
-and
"What if people held their personal religious beliefs to themselves (as put forth in the constitution) and voted for who is best to govern the people."
At this time I'm going to take a break from the constitutional religious issue...
Even though I have stated repeatedly that you, and everyone else has the right to vote any way you please, you still attempt to "re-contextualize" my statements.
You know whats really telling about your attempt at having a sensible debate? It's the fact that, not only are you not applying the intended context to my statements, ironically, you don't read everything before saying anything!
Even though I see your response's as grandiloquent non-pertinent chatter, for what little it's worth, I still read it!
Rather than debating my idea's, what you have resorted to is playing a game of "got-cha". You entered this conversation by responding to one of my post's. All you had to do was take a moment to read (a very short read) of my previous statements.
Obviously, you don't read through, nor pay attention to anything except what you "assume" to be a "got-cha" point. Had you read, and payed attention to just a few points of mine, you wouldn't have needed to "type", or "copy & paste" all of the non-pertinent dribble.
Furthermore, had you read my post just few post's above where you entered, you would have found this statement, (which by the way is the quote I thought you would use);
"Thus, it is a fact that in principle, it is an unconstitutional act to "vote" for or against a candidate for public office based upon either their, or your religious beliefs. And that's the "TRUTH"!!"
Although the context clearly states that in "principle", all you would have had to do was leave off the, "Thus, it is a fact that in principle", and you could have really...ahhh, lets say..."got-cha' jollies"!
But, in your haste to "one-up" me, you come up with two statements says absolutely nothing about "unconstitutional" voting practices. Hell, the word "unconstitutional" doesn't even appear in either statement!
Let's go back to how your vote should reflect the "priciples" of what is written in the constitution....
Voting is a private act, right? Thus you can go into the booth and vote however you like, including "writing" a candidate in.
The constitution states that a person must be a "natural born" citizen to be elected to the office of president. So, would it violate the "principle" of the constitution to write in Arnold Schwazeneggar?
All I need you to do is ANSWER the question. All you need do is give a pertinent consise and cognate responce, no need to "copy & paste" a bunch of quotes....
First off, I didn't play gotcha games with your words. I went by what you said. I am not only person to think you said things that are contrary to religious freedom in this debate.
Secondly, I did read everything you wrote. It is funny you love to throw the "assumption" card around over and over again, and act like you are above that, when you are blatantly guilty in this case of that.
Thirdly, if I give consise answers, you would do the same as you do here, but with a better case. You would accuse me of assuming, without giving any proof. In this case, I give answers that how the founders understood the Constitution is NOT the same as you how understood the Constitution on the issue of religion, and I provided documentation to that nature.
Finally, even if all those laws and facts and statements by the founders were unconstitutional, it still remains that those things EXISTED and was part of our history. The original state constitutions existed, with these religious statements. The Northwest Ordinance existed promoting religion and morality. Likewise, with George Washington's Farewell Address. The Declaration existed mentioning God as source of our rights. Likewise with Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation existed. Likewise, with Congress' approval of that (the same Congress that gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights). The constitution before the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave glory to God. The treaty of Paris that made us recognized as fully independent from England declared our God to be triune.
All these things make the country a religious one when founded. There is no getting around that.
Saying that these are not the supreme law of the land still does not take away from fact that people lived under these laws from these founders, and these laws DID exist.
Final time...
I said;"But, in your haste to "one-up" me, you come up with two statements says absolutely nothing about "unconstitutional" voting practices. Hell, the word "unconstitutional" doesn't even appear in either statement!"
Here again, I stated;"Thus, it is a fact that in principle, it is an unconstitutional act to "vote" for or against a candidate for public office based upon either their, or your religious beliefs."
Which is a lot closer to answering a "dare" to post where I stated, "it's unconstitutional to vote for a candidate based upon religious beliefs"....
You did'nt post it, so what else am I to "assume"??? Should I assume that you read it but thought it wasn't exact enough to prove your point, even though the word "unconstitutional" appears in the statement???? That would be "STUPID" Tran!
By no means do I think you're stupid Tran. I just dont believe you read it! Had you read that post(and for the obvious reason) you would have responded with that statement!!!!
This question I will assume you read, but chose not to answer...
The constitution states that a person must be a "natural born" citizen to be elected to the office of president. So, would it violate the "principle" of the constitution to write in Arnold Schwazeneggar?
(Hint: It is a "got-cha" question)
"You did'nt post it, so what else am I to "assume"??? Should I assume that you read it but thought it wasn't exact enough to prove your point, even though the word "unconstitutional" appears in the statement???? That would be "STUPID" Tran! By no means do I think you're stupid Tran. I just dont believe you read it! Had you read that post(and for the obvious reason) you would have responded with that statement!!!!"
And I am supposed to take lessons on what is stupid and what is not stupid from you?
Whenever you use the Constitution and say things about voting you say is violation of what you see in the Constitution, and whenever you play card that those things I cited are irrelevent since they are not law of the land and contrary to what you see in the Constitution, as your basis to explain them away, guess what?
You are in fact claiming those things like laws back then are unconstitutional. You don't have to use the word unconstitutional to make that claim.
So if anybody is being stupid that would be you, especially with your word games. You did it saying since the Constitution does not have the word God in it, it proves this country was not founded as a religious nation, throwing away zillions of other evidences that show you are dead wrong.
It is one thing to be ignorant of facts. It is another to claim to know it all with statements about how we don't understand the Constitution like you and when tell people they assume and are stupid whenever you are challenged with facts that are actually documented.
That is being arrogant on your part without cause.
Like I said, if you keep arguing something is contrary to a principle like test oath in the Constitution, you are in fact saying it is unconstitutional in principle. To hide behind the word unconstitutional is not used is either being disingenous (or dishonest) or saying something that forfeits your right morally to tell anyone what that person said is stupid.
Chill with the mockings of people's intelligence.
"Which is a lot closer to answering a "dare" to post where I stated, "it's unconstitutional to vote for a candidate based upon religious beliefs"...."
You yourself said people should keep their religious principles to themselves when voting. I pointed that out to you. You said I didn't understand or read the context of what you said.
You sure didn't offer what the context is to explain that statement you made.
Merely, repeating your earlier statements don't explain the context or square with what you said there. It only makes you look like you made contradictory statements.
The bottom line remains even if we are left with you saying the
And coming from you who make a whole lot of habit of avoiding my points be it on abortion issue or on this issue many times that I documented, it says you ought to talk less about accusing others of stupidity.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/12/03/jziegler_obama/
Sidebar: CB, you need to update your age in your profile:)
Post a Comment
<< Home