Lame Duck

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

DISCLAIMER:  Do not read this or respond if you voted for George Bush.  I have nothing to say to you in this rant.

So when this leader of ours starts his next term, he begins his lame duck presidency, to be ENDED by some candidate who can turn the tide away from the semi-religious, Puritanical crusade to start the next apocolypse.

I am personally organizing like minded folks of all stripes to begin this process NOW and not wait around for the hand wringing and defeatist policies of the past.  We need to learn from this loss and organize to get the message out NOW so that when this idiot's time is up, we can force him out of his throne and guide the country back to sanity.

[danilove]

I agree John. Hello, by the way. I know it has been a while...I just wanted to second your motion of 'something must be done'...It may be a ridiculous notion of mine, but I think someone should look into the various limitations that may (or may not) be associated with non-profit (namely religious) organizations. Through the entirety of the campaign, religious organizations expressed their political agenda relentlessly, and frankly there was no subtly about it. I find this troubling because I work for a 501(c) 3 organization and I know we have limits with regard to how much we can spend on lobbying and, as an arts organization we don't touch politics. That said, I'm not sure whether we are allowed to express a political endorsement or not (my gut says no)...But, if not, why do the bible-beating organziations get this opportunity? ???Just something to ponder...

[The Boar]

Of which religious organizations exactly are you speaking? Perhaps it is just my fatigue or ignorance, but I can't think of any organizations that specifically endorsed a particular candidate, let alone made such an endorsement "relentlessly". While individuals involved in religious organizations might have occasionally done this (which I believe is wrong), I don't think religious organizations as a whole engaged in this.

When religious organizations did get involved, it was usually to point out a candidate's stance on a specific issue; for instance, many "bible-beating" groups came out against gay marriage and stem-cell research. These organizations have specific agendas just like any other special-interest groups and have as much right to run an ad detailing the difference between two candidates on gay marraige as does an environmental (some might say, "tree-hugging") group running an ad about dependence on foreign oil or drilling in ANWR.

Perhaps you are angered by the fact that religious organizations have opinions which they feel need support in the political arena? Or perhaps you are contemptuous of religious organizations and their views entirely? If not, I am mistaken and I apologize. But if so, remember that just because some religious organizations do not share your values, does not mean that they lack the right to have and express their own.

[MMJ_fanatic]

and lest we forget--Mr Kerry was actively campaigning in a church very recently... ::)

[marktwain]

Yes, religious organizations have every right to endorse a candidate or an issue.  It is unfortunate, though, when a religious organization chooses to violate its own principles and misinform the public.  For instance, here in Louisville a major church ran ads supporting the Constitutional Amendment banning "gay marriage".  The slogan "One man, one woman: God's plan for marriage" was really about as informed as most people got about the amendment, which was very poorly worded and did not only ban gay marriage, but civil unions, and any partnership resulting in benefits "similar to marriage."

As a Christian, who fairly regularly attends church, I find truth to be a virtue, and obscuring the truth in order to push an agenda is wrong.  Ends don't justify means.

Another example: my father-in-law's priest has been handing out literature and preaching that abortion is the most important issue to Catholics, and that it would be sinful to vote for a candidate who supports abortion.  Of course, the Vatican's view doesn't rank abortion any higher on the sin scale than, say, pre-emptive war or the death penalty.

Anyway, let's not censor anyone, but let's fight for some truth-in-advertising.

[The Boar]

Not sure, tundra, about your take on abortion. I agree that those affiliated with religious organizations should be completely honest about any legislation they are supporting and should not openly endorse a candidate.

While the Roman Catholic Church may not say abortion is "more sinful" than the death penalty or preemptive war, I believe it does say that abortion is more warped and debasing a sin as it is the most contrary to our very conception of the sanctity of human life. Regardless of the "weight" of any of these sins, if they are all weighted equally, abortion does occur far, far, far more often than preemptive war or the death penalty.

But I agree with your point about truth-in-advertising. Honesty, people, it's all about honesty.

[MMJ_fanatic]

ban gay marriage, but civil unions,
Another example: my father-in-law's priest has been handing out literature and preaching that abortion is the most important issue to Catholics, and that it would be sinful to vote for a candidate who supports abortion.  
Anyway, let's not censor anyone, but let's fight for some truth-in-advertising.

yea a lot of places pulled that little tag-on trick to make sure no options were available, not that I have an opnion one way or another on the gay thing.  Catholics right now have as much sway in politics as the National Enquirer thanks to the pervs--an interesting saying I heard somewhere once goes "the floor of hell is tiled with the sould of priests"  kinda weird I know but in some cases its accurate.  I am sure many people still look to their church leaders fro political guidance and I think that's just plain foolish.  moral values are one thing but politics and religion should stand alone

[The Boar]

Well, MMJfanatic, that might just be the most offensive thing I've heard yet today, being a Catholic. I really haven't the slightest idea what you mean when you say Catholics are as influential as the National Enquirer -- you must enlighten me.

But I am assuming the "pervs" statement is what I think it is, and I find it sad that you are grouping all Catholic priests with those very few that have committed horrendous, criminal acts. As one who called himself "raised by Christian values", surely you know the values of good and equitable judgement; if so, then you will know that the terrible acts of which we have heard so much are not at all isolated to Catholic ministers alone.

Believing in the separation of church and state is one thing, but believing in the separation of religion and politics is something else entirely. While I don't think the two should be one, it is impossible for religion and politics to remain completely separate, if one is fully active in both; the reason for this is that both recommend that we hold certain values in living our lives. My point is, one has to choose to either let politics affect and inform your religion or let religion affect and inform your politics.

Personally, MMJfanatic, I'd much rather look to my "church leaders" for my "moral values" than try to discern them from some other source of influence, especially the influence from which you seem to have formed your apparently anti-Catholic sentiments.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Well, MMJfanatic, that might just be the most offensive thing I've heard yet today, being a Catholic. I really haven't the slightest idea what you mean when you say Catholics are as influential as the National Enquirer -- you must enlighten me.

But I am assuming the "pervs" statement is what I think it is, and I find it sad that you are grouping all Catholic priests with those very few that have committed horrendous, criminal acts. As one who called himself "raised by Christian values", surely you know the values of good and equitable judgement; if so, then you will know that the terrible acts of which we have heard so much are not at all isolated to Catholic ministers alone.

Believing in the separation of church and state is one thing, but believing in the separation of religion and politics is something else entirely. While I don't think the two should be one, it is impossible for religion and politics to remain completely separate, if one is fully active in both; the reason for this is that both recommend that we hold certain values in living our lives. My point is, one has to choose to either let politics affect and inform your religion or let religion affect and inform your politics.

Personally, MMJfanatic, I'd much rather look to my "church leaders" for my "moral values" than try to discern them from some other source of influence, especially the influence from which you seem to have formed your apparently anti-Catholic sentiments.

sorry dude I was referring mostly to the bad priests who, of course get all the press.  I live near Boston MA and you probably know the Boston diocese was the source of many of my mentioned pervs.  I know there are many wonderful positive priests and have many Catholic friends but there are also a lot of permanently scarred victims out there who would sooner look to a trash can than their local priest for moral guidance.  religious leaders are definitely fine sources for moral guidance.  I guess no matter how carefully you say things it can always come out wrong eventually. :-/

[burrito_brother]

 The American people have spoken. We approved torture in Abu Grahib, Guantanamo Bay and Baghram. Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time because we've agreed to suspend due process of law whenever we are frightened. As a rule, we condoned pre-emptive war. The United States is a nation of nation-builders now. Pax Americana. We rule by military decree, not by consensus. One-hundred thousand dead is a small price to pay for the incarceration of a single man.

As far as we're concerned, the deficit isn't deep enough. What does it matter? Earthly debts are meaningless after the Rapture. We consider environmental conservation nonsensical. If the Lord is going to destroy the world, then why should we preserve it? We are a faith-based nation. We will not allow data to blur our vision. Facts that do not support our preconceived notions will be discarded. We support programs that redistribute public money to Christian organizations. For need of assistance, ye shall recieve the Word. To combat Islamic fundamentalism we must rely on a literal interpretation and devotion to Scripture.

We anticipate and approve justices whose Constitutional interpretations will make it possible to incarcerate women for family-planning decisions. If a woman gets pregnant now, then so must she have a family now. If she's not ready for children, then she should blow him. Speaking of fellatio, we approved social contracts in which only one partner may perform that act. For the sin of h0m0s3xuality, we permit the government to take property upon the death of one of two gay partners. We refuse an ailing gay person the right to choose visitors during hospitalization. Since h0m0sexuality is a lifestyle choice, we don't want to do anything to encourage that sort of behavior.

The world may not like our decisions, but it doesn't have our firepower. All U.S. foreign policy decisions will be made in Washington except for those made in Jerusalem. We will invade those countries we choose to invade. The proceeds are reserved for Halliburton. Nations that fail to help finance our excursions will be deemed enemies of Freedom. They will feel our wrath. Just consider what happened to France: We renamed their fries.

[EC]

Okay.  Wow.  Sometimes I can forget how politics/religion/philosophy can spark nerve endings.

Listen.  If you hate where you live, come up here.  It's pretty easy to sneak in and stay, and we certainly have a history of taking in Americans who are frustrated with their country.  I'm not saying it's that much better, but we do try to keep religion out of our politics, we allow women the choice to keep or terminate their pregnancies, gay people are treated as they should be in most places (insofar as we don't condemn them for being as they were born), everybody has free healthcare to a certain extent, we try not to enter into wars that were begun on false pretenses, we let sick people smoke drugs that make them feel better (and some would argue, help them), and we have a helluva lot of maple syrup and beer and hockey and snow.  Plus we say please and thank you, and we try to let everyone have their own opinion, and respect that.

But you can't buy beer at the supermarket/convenience store, so it's kind of a toss up...  (Unless you go to Quebec, where you can also drink at 18.)

[Oz]

Just come over to Europe guys. You can do all the above and buy beer at a supermarket. Hurray!  :)

[lfish]

As it seems there's so many to read today on the forum, here's a very short sentence:

It's weekend, lively up yourselves  :D

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Wow!  If nothing else, it seems we've sparked up a lot of debate here.  Great, I felt as if I was banging on the same drum for a while all by myself.

[burrito_brother]

take it to the streets ladies and gentlemen: all you need is an overhead projector, some rope, a marker, and a little inspiration:http://www.freewayblogger.com/
works for me! ;)