Politics (enter at your own risk!)

[Fiferguy]

So, the nation may have become religious, but it sure wasn't founded that way...

If I remember correctly, the idea was that people should be free to believe what they wanted to believe. Religious Freedom, I think it was called. I think that they put something into law in 1791 about it... I could be wrong though. But religious freedom doesn't give people the right to force their opinion on others. I think we should make a law against that as well.

[michaelsuave]

So, the nation may have become religious, but it sure wasn't founded that way...

Um, actually, it was... Ever hear of the puritans? Pilgrims and all that? Thanksgiving is next week... ringing a bell? Our "founders" went to church the ENTIRE day on sunday, and if you fell asleep a guy with a stick with a string tied to a rock would knock you on the head to wake you up and get you focused back on the sermon. This nation was founded on religion, specifically very fundamentalistic christian. Basically, if you look at the quakers now, you are seeing what the founders of our country were like. Just take a look at the U.S. supreme court building some day, the ten commandments are still there...

~Michael

[Trekkie]

Well, it didn't take them long.

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.

http://kucinich.us/

but don't wory, he still supports the troops </sarc>

[Fiferguy]

So, the nation may have become religious, but it sure wasn't founded that way...

Um, actually, it was... Ever hear of the puritans? Pilgrims and all that? Thanksgiving is next week... ringing a bell? Our "founders" went to church the ENTIRE day on sunday, and if you fell asleep a guy with a stick with a string tied to a rock would knock you on the head to wake you up and get you focused back on the sermon. This nation was founded on religion, specifically very fundamentalistic christian. Basically, if you look at the quakers now, you are seeing what the founders of our country were like. Just take a look at the U.S. supreme court building some day, the ten commandments are still there...

~Michael

Er...actually, it wasn't. Ben Franklin believed in God, but not in any particular religious doctrine. See http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights ... igion.html for some of his writings.

John Adams was a Unitarian, and Jefferson belived similarly to Franklin. The idea of religious freedom was paramount to the founding fathers, not one particular religion. George Washington himself, though a church-goer, didn't attend regularly, and went to a wide variety of church services.

I found something online that might be of interest to everyone:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F ... igion.html

There was such a wide variety of religions represented, there couldn't have been a single religious driving force. And I read something somewhere that suggested that one or two of the "Founding Fathers" was an atheist.

But the point is this, religious freedom has always been a cornerstone of the US. Why should we accept a forced religion by an incompetent boob?

[Wingsolution]

isn't it amazing how acurate a descriptive politics is?

poly - tics

multitude - blood sucking parasites

the only way it could be more descriptive, is if it was talking about lawyers...


...wait a minute... what percentage of politicians were lawyers?


this was pointed out on a story I read, they were having translater 'issues' on first contact...

[Sbudda]

You tried to make some link between Sennadar and the Real world - so yeah, it needed to be said. You can't attempt to justify or even explain Bush's actions by comparing it to what happened in Sennadar.

Nah, I was just making light of it all. I really need to figure out that humor tag....

Um, actually, it was... Ever hear of the puritans? Pilgrims and all that? .... Just take a look at the U.S. supreme court building some day, the ten commandments are still there...

Sure, the early colonizers may have been predominantly Christian, but the US was not. As I said in my earlier post, the pilgrims may have been quite religious, but they had just left a country that had an official religion - one that was pretty happy to see them go away. They were actually quite tolerant of other religions for this very reason. However the Pilgrims landed 156 years before the founding of the country, so it really doesn't have much to do with the US I suppose.

A more specific example is directly in the Constitution (emphasis is mine).

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Considering that this was a vast departure from any other State at the time, it seems obvious that the Federal government was designed to be secular.

About the Supreme Court Building....it may look old, but it wasn't built until 1932-1935. Not what Washington would call a contemporary structure. Of course, in addition to the 10 Commandments, it also has various statues of Justice, Moses, Confuscious, Napolean, Hammurabi, Mohammed, as well as a statue of the Three Fates. So if the building seems Christian, it also seems Muslim, Jewish, Confusciousist (?), and whatever the heck you called someone who worshipped Greek gods. Again, that demonstrates that the US tries to be respectful of all religions - but is still secular in nature.

Peace out homefries.

[Blyker]

The problem imo is the system that you guys have. There is no place for political minorities in our senate or congress. You have just 2 behemoths that swap power every 4 to 8 years.

Im not saying that the Dutch system is perfect but in our parliament there is room for just those political minorities that can question the government on all kinds of issieus.

We have an animal party ..... religious parties and the right wing extremists (they had 1 seat a couple of years ago). All those parties form a broad representation of the population, and because some of them will never be part of the government they dont have to think about ruling the country so they are free to speak in our parliament.

Personally i think thats much more democratic then the system that the US has.

[Wingsolution]

having a bunch of small partys able to talk in parlament is ok, but the US was founded as a rebellion, so a strong central figure to lead was nessicary...

... note to self, ask for spellchecker...

[Lochar]

having a bunch of small partys able to talk in parlament is ok, but the US was founded as a rebellion, so a strong central figure to lead was nessicary...

Uh, you do realize we rebelled to get AWAY from a strong central figure AKA King?

Check out the Articles of Confederation. The first attempt at a Constitution. The central government in it was quite literally a figurehead. They only gave it more power because otherwise the US would have broken up into 13 seperate countries, instead of states of a whole.

[Fiferguy]

having a bunch of small partys able to talk in parlament is ok, but the US was founded as a rebellion, so a strong central figure to lead was nessicary...

Uh, you do realize we rebelled to get AWAY from a strong central figure AKA King?

Check out the Articles of Confederation. The first attempt at a Constitution. The central government in it was quite literally a figurehead. They only gave it more power because otherwise the US would have broken up into 13 seperate countries, instead of states of a whole.

There was a lot of discussion back then about what kind of government to have. The Federalist Papers and the Antifederalist Papers are some of the most well known, but there are others. One common objection to an elected legislature was "Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?" But at the same time, considerable thought was also put in to a executive of any type. There was a lot of debate to get the kind of government that we have now, and a device put in place to change it, in the even that it needs to be.

The problem lies in the greed of man, not the system. Men are greedy for power, greedy for land, and greedy for money. Anything that they can use to improve their place in life. If we could eliminate greed from the human psyche, we'd all be better off.

[Fawks]

I have been reading the posts here and wanted to comment. I am a middle of the road conservative.

I dont believe in Guvment HealthCare. I hear too much about Canadians coming to the U.S. to get faster/better care. Also, too much bureaucracy. 'Nuff said.

National Elections, my way... 45 days for party campaigning then dem/repub convention/election, 45 days for national campaigning. Election on first tues of Nov. The earliest that we would be harrased with election coverage in the news would then be August 1, OF THE ELECTION YEAR! Not 18 months of crap, trash, and mud. Each contender would be limitied in the amount of money they could spend in the party primary. Monetary donations are given to the states party for that House, Senate or Presidential race, NOT to the campaign of the contender. Also, the contenders would not know who donated. ALL monies raised but not spent for the contenders in the party primary would then go to the government and spread evenly between ALL contenders (rep/dem/independent) of the House, Senate or Presidential race that the money was raised for.


Bush... First of all I think he is a hell of a lot better choice than "stuck in Iraq" Kerry. If...IF he won election by stealing, he learned it from the best at it (i.e. democrats). Second, back around 2k, Hussain said that he would give $25,000 to the family of suicide bombers. If that was the only reason that he gave for going into Iraq, I would still say OK, do it. Third, did Bush (& crew) have a plan to win the war in Iraq? Yes. Instill law and order directly after the war? No. Establish and seal off Iraqs borders with Syria and Iran? NO Have a plan to efficiently transition to an occupation government, then a new Iraqi government? Hell No. Should Rumsfeld have left the pentagon a long time ago? Yes. Fourth, Did he get a bad rap for 9/11. Yes. Most of you probably have forgotten that just five months before 9/11 the U.S. was attacked when a Chinese plane rammed a U.S. Airforce plane in the south china sea. Was his attention on bin laden in august or early september? No, with reason.


Pelosi, Her being from SF makes me fear her. Very few politicians from the bay area have any central leanings. I fear that Comrade Pelosi is the speaker of the house. Just as I would fear any ultra conservative that would want evangelical religion preached at all schools. I do not want anyone in the high offices of guvment to have any far leaning tendencies (Pat Robertson OR Ed Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi). I do like that she has a strong dislike of the chinese (see previous paragraph) and their MFN status.


As far as not following the party marching orders... What about democrat errr.... independent Senator Lieberman? Are the republicans saints in this category? No.


Should I say anything about democrats wanting to cut and run (i.e. Iraq, Somalia, USS Cole, Embassy bombings in Iraq, Tehran hostages, Vietnam... Nah.


Hmmmm Dufas. ROFL the_scot, Interesting idea.
Miser... Wish U would run for office. Send that as a letter to the editor of all major newspapers.
Sbudda, lets just say I agree to disagree. True, the U.S. was not an established Anglican/Episcopal nation. But, it was established as a christian nation. Christian prayers were said at the beginning of the constitutional convention. Not islamic, not scientologist, not buddist, not anamist, christian. Whether the preacher saying the prayer was a wesleyan, puritan, baptist, methodist, quaker, church of god, assembly of god, penticostal, or catholic the preacher was a christian. Now, do I think that the head of a church should be president? NO (thinks about Pat Robertson and shudders) But, I do not think that those who cry out that the U.S. is not a christian nation are correct. In the past 40 years, my rights as a christian have been subjugated, by liberal democrats and judges placed by them, to those who are not.


If I remember correctly, The war of independence was not against the king. (Thus Americans, even today have a fascination with the British royalty) The war was against parliament, and taxation without representation.


</soapbox>

[Sbudda]

The problem imo is the system that you guys have. There is no place for political minorities in our senate or congress. You have just 2 behemoths that swap power every 4 to 8 years.

I'm curious how other nations manage to maintain a multiple party system. While America doesn't have only two parties, the two that garner 99% of the votes (nationally - in local elections other parties have better luck) have managed to institutionalize themselves to the point that most voters don't feel a vote for a third party (or 4th, 5th, etc) would be heard or valuable. Also, only the two major parties manage to raise any money. So how do the Dutch handle this issue?

Sbudda, lets just say I agree to disagree. True, the U.S. was not an established Anglican/Episcopal nation. But, it was established as a christian nation. Christian prayers were said at the beginning of the constitutional convention. Not islamic, not scientologist, not buddist, not anamist, christian. Whether the preacher saying the prayer was a wesleyan, puritan, baptist, methodist, quaker, church of god, assembly of god, penticostal, or catholic the preacher was a christian. Now, do I think that the head of a church should be president? NO (thinks about Pat Robertson and shudders) But, I do not think that those who cry out that the U.S. is not a christian nation are correct. In the past 40 years, my rights as a christian have been subjugated, by liberal democrats and judges placed by them, to those who are not.

Fawks, I think it is great that you disagree! Debate without disagreement is boring... (as Jack Johnson in Futurama said..."Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said.") ...funny but boring.

You say that Christian prayers were said at the beginneing of the Constitutional Convention. You didn't state if you meant at the beginning of each day, or at the start of the overall lengthy process, but I will assume that you meant daily. The reason that I will assume this, is due to a speech given by Ben Franklin on June 28, 1787 requesting that prayer be added to the convention - 4 weeks after the convention had begun (May 14th, but didn't reach quorum until May 25) which proves that a prayer was not performed prior to this date at the very least.

It was a request that was famously derided by Alexander Hamilton as refusing to accept "foreign aid". Which I think is just too funny.

In the original draft of the speech; which was in Franklin's handwriting; there was a note that stated "The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary." In fact, even after the request (which ended with the compromise that everyone who wished, should go to a sermon on the 4th of July at the Race Street Church) there was no official prayer prior to any meeting, until the first session of the new Congress on April 9th, 1789. For completeness, it should be noted that the service that they observed on the 4th of July was an annual oration on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence given by a man identified in my research as "Mr. Mitchell, a student of law" - not a chaplin. So I find your assertion of there being prayer prior to the Convention to be unsound, admittedly based only on my own research. I would be interested to hear your own proof on this issue.

That having been said, at least we agree that Pat Robinson shouldn't be President.

I am curious about one part of your post. How exactly have your "rights as a christian....been subjugated"? So long as you are allowed to attend church, congregate with people of a like mind, and are not discriminated against by the government, it seems to me that you still have all the rights that you are warranted. Since you state issues with "liberal judges" I would assume that you are referring to famous court decisions such as Row v Wade - which doesn't really make sense to me. To take Row v Wade as an example (admittedly, this may have no relevance to the statement that you made), Christians still have the right to not have abortions - they just lost the ability to make everyone else follow along. I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Aside from your opinions on religion and it's part in the founding of the country, I reckon I should address your other points too. (Because actually working while at work sucks before a holiday.)

I'm not gonna snub your ideas on Gubmit Healthcare. I'm not totally against a dual system; but like you; I'm extremely nervous of such a plan, and would never give my support without reading and understanding a comprehensive writeup about it.

I like some of your ideas on national elections. 18 months of complaining about the other candidates does get old after about 3 days. I'd like to see each candidate list their voting record, and their plans for change on their website instead of telling us how much of a family man they are, and how cool their dog is. (In GA we had a political ad with the incumbent's wife telling everyone how nice it was to be married to him - I kid you not.)

Your idea of candidates not knowing where their elections funds come from has a lot of merit. Though I would like to see a budgetary line where each legal candidate gets $XXX for the election, and that's it. Throw in a FCC law that states that each television station must televise 2 debates to retain their license, and you might reduce the amount spent and the number of favors bought.

I'm not sure what you have against the Chinese - not that I'm saying that we don't have plenty to worry about from them - but remember that prior to their plane hitting ours we did bomb their embassy "accidently" with a smart bomb. You know, I'm just saying...

Post is now too long once again - so I better stop...sorry again everyone.

[Sbudda]

If we could eliminate greed from the human psyche, we'd all be better off.

Not always... the capitalist system works by harnessing that innate greed and focusing it for the good of others - which usually works. For instance, I wonder how many plays Shakespeare would have written had he not gotten paid for them, or how many of us would have electricity or telephones were it not for the greed of power and communications companies.

I'd label excessive greed (of the Enron type) as a form of addiction, or a compulsive disorder combined with extreme sociopathy. Which we can probably agree would be good to eliminate.