Quote of the day
posted at 10:35 pm on February 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Evangelicals never really did trust John McCain. They never really thought he was going to champion social issues. Speaking at the Log Cabin Republican Convention just confirms what many Evangelicals felt all along. Evangelicals were basically used by the Bush administration as a political voting block rather than any sort of instrument of change. They just wanted the votes. The cause was secondary. Same with McCain. With President Obama, while his views differ from conservative Evangelicals (which is a problem) he’s at least serious about having a faith based discussion.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
And if you’re going to correct grammar on message board then use complete sentences.
Bottom line, how is she supposed to judge who is a good economist and who is bad when she is hiring?
I think your sentence needs another verb. It’s not correct sentence structure.
Please, just engage in the discussions and leave out the typing attacks. People do try and these are not term papers. You’ll be spending all of your time correcting my posts.
:-)
BTW, (is BTW an okay acronym ?) He never called “you” stupid. He said what you were saying was stupid.
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Christians are denied freedom of expression on a regular basis. A Christian should be free to express their beliefs, same as any other religion. Only in the world of government, and apparently your world and others that think as you, would one person being allowed to express their religion, be deemed as a denial of other’s religion. If I allow a Muslim, Jew, or any other religious person to come into my home and pray, that doesn’t mean I am establishing a religion, any more than the government is by allowing the same thing.
One only need travel around the capital, see the multitudinous displays of religion that our founders allowed into our national buildings, the prayers said before sessions of congress, the mention of a “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, not to mention that the Capital building was used as a church, attended by Thomas Jefferson, no less, to see that the founders only had problems with the government creating a state religion. Such was one reason they fled England, as the official state church was the Church of England. The founders had no problem with the expression of religion, ANY religion. Their problem was only the establishment of one by the state, as stated in the first amendment. The founders intent has been perverted by those that have an anti Christian agenda,and indeed, an anti-religious agenda in general. Of course, our government does purchase and distribute the Koran to our Muslim prisoners. Wonder if they would give me a Bible, if I was a prisoner?
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
What a bunch of crap! With statements like above, I see no reason to trust Evangelicals.
Blake on February 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM
LOL
First of I never did call you stupid. I said your argument was stupid. We can’t get in the heads of our favorite politicians; we can only judge them on what they say and their records. While running the federal government is the most daunting task in our known universe running a state is not that far behind. Palin has done extremely well in handling her state economy so far. Secondly I never said that you did say Palin was less preferable to Obama, the question was somewhat rhetorical. But I digress. Thirdly I would point out that the man you seem impress with on economical issues, Steve Forbes, is a BIG TIME Sarah Palin fan as she is of him. If I recall correctly she supported Forbes during his presidential run and was even appointed co-chair for his campaign in her state (Google is your Friend). There must be a reason. Fourth you are doing exactly what I was complaining about when you say this:
You don’t know who she would put in there so why say something silly? All indications from her known record and known statements on economical matters point to her being more inline with Ronald Reagan and Steve Forbes then George Bush on economics. She’s not a proponent of overly large government spending (like the ridiculous Prescription drug bill) or the insane bailouts we have been seeing.
Fifth and last the Austrians rock and HUMAN ACTION should be required reading for all economics majors in college.
Dritanian on February 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM
The use of “Creator” doesn’t endorse any particular creed.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Wonder if they would give me a Bible, if I was a prisoner?
mwdiver on February 18
No need. Christians know that it is not government’s place to spread the word of God. It is ours. Jesus did not call upon Herod to spread the good news. The list of private organizations that would rush a bible into your hands is long, I’m sure. But your point is taken. What had been a “hands off freedom of religion” policy is now a “total freedom from religion” policy.
SKYFOX on February 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I agree, but it seems to offend some Atheists who believe there is no creator.
My point, however, is that our founders were not anti-religion. They were only “anti” in regards to there being a state-mandated religion.
The issue that many wish to hide is the fact that our founders embraced religious beliefs. This zeal is what has been an unrelenting force since the 50′s.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Thanks. At least someone gets it.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
The use of “Creator” doesn’t endorse any particular creed.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
It doesn’t endorse any particular denomination. All the Founding Fathers came from a Christian background. Here’s the breakdown:
Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. href=”http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
If by “discussion”, you mean saying “I Won” while signing FOCA into law.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Yet Jefferson chose to go with the more abstract term “Creator” rather than “God”. In declaring independence Jefferson doesn’t appeal to Christ or the Bible as a source of rights.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I think we’re talking apples and oranges here. Your example of allowing prayers in your own house is based upon your permission, and your guests’ voluntary compliance. State owned buildings are often of the type that people must use in the pursuit of normal life. Such an arrangement should not favour any particular group, but, instead, perform the intended function for all – on an equal basis.
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
That’s true. But, other great American thinkers refer to Him as The Creator, also. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote
kingsjester on February 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Emerson, writing a few generations after Jefferson, had an even more abstract notion of our relation to the divine. As a Transcendentalist, Emerson was critical of Christian teaching at the time and believed that Christ was a great teacher but not God.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM
With Jeremiah Wright and God d@mn America?
Or Louis Farrakhan, who says Barack is the Messiah?
Saint James wrote that “faith without works is dead”. If a candidate clearly stands up for his faith and does works that show his faith, Evangelicals will vote for him en masse. There are still more Evangelicals out there than Log Cabin Republicans.
Steve Z on February 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It is a bunch of crap. One guy doesn’t speak for all Christianity. I promise that this Christian, and 95%+ of the others that I know don’t buy the bull that Obama is selling.
He funded abortions within days of taking office. That should forever be a huge issue with anyone who claims to follow Christ.
stewardoftruth on February 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I think we are in agreement on the basics. We just disagree on the specifics.
Merely allowing religious displays does not favor any particular religion. I would go so far as to say that allowing some and not others my be construed as such, but that isn’t the argument that most of the “anti-religion” people espouse. Nor should it keep anyone from any religion doing business in such places.
If you don’t believe in a religion, then the symbols of it should have no meaning to you. I asked a Jewish friend of mine if being wished “Merry Christmas” offended him. He said it did not offend him. It meant nothing to him one way or the other. A Star of David doesn’t offend me, nor do other symbols of religions in which I don’t believe. If those things offend others, that’s their issue to deal with. To the best of my knowledge, of course some liberal judge will probably change this down the road, as is being done in Canada, the freedom of being offended doesn’t exist in the constitution.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Interesting. Well, if that is so, then perhaps you can provide us all with your learned exposition on the inclusion of the language of the Preamble . . . to wit:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
(my emphasis supplied)
Trochilus on February 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Anyone stupid enough to fall for this deserves what they get.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
What kind of BS is this? The first administration to open an office for Faith Based policies? The only administration in recent memory to take a principled Christian position on refusing to support research which destroys human embryos? The same administration that continued the Reagan policies against federal funds for abortions overseas, and which recognized that Life is the most precious thing we have? A Man who prayed daily and was as honest as possible in the decisions he made and positions he supported?
And these so called Evangelicals disagreed with those positions, or thought Obama would be better than McCain on those issues? If those are the Evangelicals seeking to be supported by Republicans or the Bush administrations, then they are neither Christian nor worthy of admittance to anything except the furthest reaches of Hell. Dissatisfaction with getting only part of their way in a country of 300 million and blasting the people who brought them to the only party in town makes them ingrates, and pretty low in the food chain in my book.
This guy is so wrong, even at CBN, that he has not a clue about what the Lord meant when he said our lives would be a struggle and we needed to do our best to live a good life. What lies and distortions.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM
It has nothing to do with equality. Being black is not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Being a practicing homosexual is a sin, at least in all but the most liberal interpretations of the Bible. I’ll accept that there may be other arguments to be made about equal rights, but relating being black to being gay isn’t one of them.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 12:13 PM
It can be a sin until the cows come home, but until we embrace our brothers and sisters in God, we are rejecting His plan.
God created all His children in His image.
patriot1 on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I am not making up that there is good evidence our sexual orientation is little different than our hair or eye color:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gays-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html (Actually, our hair color is far easier to change than our sexual orientation!)
And – I’m not saying that anyone should be forced to alter their religious beliefs.
I’m only saying that IF Republicans wish to win more elections, then more of them need to stop being so bigoted about gay folks.
I’m tired of pussyfooting around the truth. That is what it is. Many people today view harsh treatment of gay people and denial of rights little different than Jim Crow.
pbundy on February 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM
There is a difference in loving someone and embracing their behavior. I love my children, but I do not embrace it when they participate in unacceptable behavior. God’s desire is for us to love one another. I do not believe He wants us to embrace what He deems sinful.
mwdiver on February 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Whoa, you won me over there slick. We bigoted Christians just need to STFU and get in line to agree with and to vote for and live the way the rest of you see fit to save this party from it’s evil Social Conservative roots. What were we thinking? Can you send me a list of who you want me to vote for and call me when it’s time to go to the poles since I don’t have to follow the news anymore or form an opinion?
hawkdriver on February 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM
One could look at how Jefferson’s “Nature’s God” differs from the Biblical God. Jefferson saw a Creator (an intelligent designer) who revealed himself through the laws of nature. Man could discover God through a study of the natural world and make political laws from rational analysis.
Jefferson opposed the notion of a God who revealed himself through scripture or violated the laws of nature to deliver punishment.
dedalus on February 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Oh you mean the same radical gays that march, threaten and attack old women going to church? Angry protesting gays forcing Conservatives to accept their rights while stomping on ours?
The same gays that are so radical they would push gay gendas in public schools even at K & 1st grade?
Are these the gays I’m to feel sorry for?
ROFL!
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM
First, I apologize for the late reply.
For the record, I have no problem with such things as displays, festivals, greetings, or customs in general. I am appalled at the decisions taken vis-a-vis Nativity displays, for example.
However, when it comes to actions by activists to “get in my face”, attempting to force me to go where I do not wish, that is a different matter. Also, I think that religious studies should be in a class for that purpose, not imposed upon other areas of learning.
The thing that many people do not understand is that tolerance works both ways. (I do realize that such a stance is anathema to the Left).
OldEnglish on February 18, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6