Blyker wrote: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?
Fawks wrote: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.