Posted on 09/30/2004 7:19:03 AM PDT by Warden
Cats have no sense of humor when it comes to masking tape stuck to their paws.
They're not real crazy about baths either.
The engines in Royal Enfield motorcycles were built from castings purchased by the Enfield Rifle company from Indian when they went bankrupt.
"I'd vote. I think it's a duty you pledge to perform if you live in the nation and take part in the social compact. Not a right. Not a privilege."
It is our duty. I will vote. I need the discernment of Solomon (1 Kings 3:25) to make the decision as to who I should vote for. I believe that America would be far better off if the Constitution Party candidates Michael A. Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin were in office. I do not believe that Peroutka has a chance at winning the Presidential election. God might possibly differ with me on that though. He is after all in control. I might be the person that God in his mystery uses to bring this to the attention of the American public. Not likely, but you never know. That is why I need the Wisdom of Solomon.
I paint stark pictures and have no real concern about converting anyone to anything. There is no alternative to voting for Bush for serious people and I have little interest in playing intellectual games about serious matters.
I mean no personal offense by my bluntness.
>I also know the Constitution protects me from abiding by
>their definitions of what is moral/immoral, or if I should
>follow their religious beliefs or not.
Ok. Well, I have a proposal. Let's permanently disenfranchise you by shooting you. No? Well, why not? Why is it immoral to purge your political foes by reducing their blood pressure to zero?
What's that you say? "Thou shalt not kill?" Wait...I thought you wanted to be freed from the Christian definition of what is moral/immoral.
I have a lot of respect for Christians. I even have some respect for those hedonistic anarchists which reject the Christian faith. I have very little respect for agnostic or atheistic law-and-order libertarians who piggyback on Christian morality until it tells them what not to do with their genitals, wallets, or Sunday mornings.
I don't have to be a Christian to know humans shouldn't kill each other. In fact, I knew that as a child long before I was old enough to know what was really going on in church. And do you think Christianity is the only religion that preaches that? They haven't cornered the market on all things moral as you probably define it.
Just because it says that in the good book and I'm not not about to go out and kill someone doesn't mean I have to abide by or respect every other commandment or bible lesson that you feel I should.
The End
The analogy you claim was made was comparing current parties in this country to bad parties in other countries in the past. That is exactly incorrect, and you missed the real analogy, which has to do with two parties, NEITHER OF WHICH YOU AGREE WITH, AND IN FACT DETEST, and the preposterous notion that you should vote for one or the other in order not to "waste" your vote. That is the analogy, not the one you made up in order to avoid admitting that your wasted vote theory is goofy.
I'm sure you will revert to your previous nonsense of changing the subject to me or whether you like certain literary devices, but no one of even average intelligence was fooled when reading the exchange.
I'll repeat, EVEN IF YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY, NO COMPARISON BETWEEN NAZIS AND COMMUNISTS AND REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WAS INTENDED BY ME, THE COMPARISON WAS TO TWO IDEOLOGIES WITH WHICH YOU DISAGREE.
So the question remains, and I'm sure will remain, unanswered by you.
That same poster you are exchanging with claims that anyone who votes for anyone other than Bush is not a Christian, so take what he says with a grain of salt.
Nothing was said about GWB ~ check your medication.
Indeed, He is. :-)
100%!! :)
Thank you for the reply. That's an interesting example.
While I think Moore was correct about there being nothing unconstitutional about having a Ten Commandments monument in the state courthouse, I also think it was correct to remove him when he refused to obey a lawful court order and indicated he would continue to do so if left in office.
Some Christians may disagree with me. But how is it that they are against the rule of law in this case and for it in others? There are far more important battles to engage than this.
Well said.
Well, even if it was "way too easy" for ya, I'm sure you'd just follow up with some kind of racial slur if ya could... seems to be a favorite thing of yours.
A synopsis;
(Last updated 9/04)
The Roman emperor Nero didn’t mind Romans calling themselves Christians. He didn’t throw them to the lions or burn them at the stake because they believed in Jesus. He just wanted them to worship Caesar too. They were allowed to add Jesus to their list of Roman gods. Even today in Communist China, Christians are not beaten, tortured, and imprisoned in labor camps because they believe in Jesus or profess to be Christians. Not at all. They’re persecuted because they act like Christians. They’re beaten and thrown in prison because they evangelize, because they deny the heresies of the government-sanctioned church, because they speak against tyrannical government usurpations such as the denial of God-given rights, because they refuse to render unto Caesar that which is due only to God.
Not every person who professes to be a Christian is one. Faith without works, without tangible deeds of obedience, is dead faith – it is the faith of devils. (James 2:10-24) Jesus asks, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46) “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20) If the fruit is evil, then the tree is evil. Jesus calls us to make these judgments. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment,” said Christ in John 7:24. If we gullibly embrace every profession of faith in spite of evidence to the contrary, we will never be able to distinguish the sheep from the “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” (Matthew 7:18)
George W. Bush professes to be a Christian, goes to church, makes references to Bible verses, and says, “God bless America,” but so did Bill Clinton, so this alone cannot be sufficient to win the vote of Christian conservatives. Like Clinton, George Bush’s fruit was evident to all with eyes to see during his campaign against Gore. Many Christians were undoubtedly innocently ignorant of George W. Bush’s liberal tendencies and therefore easily susceptible to his conservative rhetoric, but far too many were willfully blind to his bad fruit. Pragmatism took precedence over God’s Word and the principles of conservatism when conservatives the nation over supported and voted for the most electable candidate over the only blessable, anointable candidate, and as you will see in the course of this article, the roots of tyranny have deepened in America as a result. The guilt for the daily encroachment on God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, under President Bush’s leadership, can be laid squarely at the foot of the professing church. If there was ever any doubt about the liberal sway of George W. Bush before his Presidency, that doubt should be well cleared up by now for all but only the willfully naïve.
Do I believe that sincere, well-meaning Christians can vote for George Bush and be right with God? Sure! I believe that a sincere, well-meaning Christian can vote Democratic and be right with God. However, even unintended ignorance can destroy a nation and God’s people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) Intentional or malicious ignorance in the absence of the fear of God brings culpability and judgment (Proverbs 9), and of this I fear many professing Christians are guilty in their endorsement of George Bush in spite of the abundance of evidence of his evil fruit.
What is this “evil fruit” to which I refer? Precisely what is it about George W. Bush that I believe should preclude sincere Christians from voting for him?
On the campaign trail, President Bush professed to be “pro-life”, but with exceptions – he believes abortion to be justified in cases of rape and incest.[1],[2] The New York Times reported, “It was the same tempered language that George W. Bush typically uses to discuss abortion, which he opposes except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a pregnant woman's life.”[3] As Alan Keyes pointed out in the Presidential debates and in various speeches, such pro-life exceptions that allow the innocent to be killed in some circumstances disqualify President Bush from being pro-life at all.[4] If President Bush would justify the killing of one innocent person under his jurisdiction, he is disqualified from being a good person, much less a good leader. Having a rapist for a dad is not a capital crime, and for President Bush to state that innocent children can justly be killed because of the tragic circumstances of their conception reveals that he doesn’t comprehend the basic principle of the inalienable, inviolable, God-given right to life acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents.
Also, on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions,” President Bush professed.[5] Now is not the time for a Human Life Amendment that would acknowledge the personhood of the preborn child, according to Bush. His wife reiterated her husband’s sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001. When asked if she was pro-life in August of 2004, she responded, “I think abortion should be rare.”[6] If that makes somebody pro-life, then Bill Clinton was pro-life too! G. W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing[7], but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing. He swore an oath to the Constitution, which forbids deprivation of life and liberty without due process, and for him to relinquish his responsibility to uphold constitutional and Biblical principles and stop the abortion holocaust because “the culture isn’t ready” is blameworthy.
During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member. He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her. That is not pro-life. That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric. If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: “Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!”? Commenting on abortion on the campaign trail, President Bush stated, “good people can disagree on that issue.”[8] Oh really? This is manifestly absurd. Can good people disagree on whether or not innocent people should be murdered? I beg to differ: Good people cannot accept the murder of one single innocent human being.
Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade. Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence. In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.[9] By the pre-1992 National Right to Life standards, he is therefore classified as a “pro-abortion” candidate. If a judicial candidate deemed it just and constitutional to execute innocent people, that did not exclude him from a possible appointment to the Supreme Court according to President Bush. President Bush has insisted that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Court, or people who will interpret and apply the Constitution as the founders intended and not as an evolving, “living document”, but according to President Bush they need not be pro-life “strict constructionists.” His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent. The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?! That’s sound pro-life legislation, right? George Bush must be pro-life, huh? Wrong! Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents?[10] The New York Times reported, “It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…” You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed or endorsed four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. If these are examples of President Bush’s “strict constructionists”, then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.
As President, he appointed Miguel Estrada to the Federal bench. There has been much talk that Estrada would be the next Supreme Court nominee because of Bush’s desire to cater to the Latino base. With the “pro-life” community working overtime to foster the misimpression that Estrada is pro-life - in spite of the fact that the only “evidence” for this is that Bush appointed him[11] - this very well may be Bush’s first choice. Miguel Estrada’s claim to fame, however, was arguing a “landmark” Supreme Court case for the pro-abortion feminist group, the National Organization of Women, successfully convincing the court to use RICO racketeering laws against pro-life activists![12]
[1] “Bush Abortion Comments Spark Debate”, Pro-Life Infonet, 3-22-99, http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990322e.html
[2] Joseph Kellard, “George W. Bush’s Contradictory Stand on Abortion”, Capitalism Magazine, 9-22-99, http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2371
[3] “Bush Tempers Abortion Remarks,” New York Times, 10-1-00
[4] Alan Keyes on Greenspan at Large (CNN), 8-9-01, Renew America Archives, Rhttp://www.renewamerica.tv/archives/media/interviews/01_08_09stemcell.htm
[5] Judy Keen et al, “Bush: USA Isn’t Ready for Total Abortion Ban,” USA Today, 10-28-03, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-28-bush-abortion_x.htm
[6] “First Lady Bush Says She is Pro-Life, and ‘Wants Abortion to Be Rare’,” Interview with Washington Times report Bill Sammons, Lifesitenews.com, 8-19-04, Interview can be read in its entirety at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040819-121932-1223r.htm
[7] J.P. Johnston, “The Line in the Sand: Siding with God to Abolish Abortion”, http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=26&p=1
[8] “Bush, McCain Step Around Abortion”, The Associated Press, 1-27-00
[9] Washington Post, 6-15-99
[10] The New York Times, 7-9-00
[11] “The Line in the Sand: Siding with God to Abolish Abortion,” by Dr. Johnston, http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=26
[12] “Miguel Estrada: An American Success Story,” Sept. 13, 2002, The Latino Coalition, www.thelatinocoalition.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.