NH Democrats accuse Republican of “Bible Belt agenda” for asking people to pray for healing America

posted at 12:15 pm on December 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The party of tolerance strikes again in New Hampshire.  According to the spokesperson of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, Harrell Kirstien, the speech below by state Rep. David Bates is an attempt to impose a new theocracy on the US.  That may come as a surprise to most Christians who attend church and hear the same message of sin, redemption, and the need for atonement and prayer just about every Sunday.  In response, a conservative political group has demanded an apology from the Democrats for Kirstien’s “bigotry.”  Watch the video and see just where Bates calls for a government imposition of prayer vigils:

Democratic spokeswoman Harrell Kirstien accused Republican State Rep. David Bates of attempting to impose a “Bible belt social agenda” after video surfaced of Bates saying “the only hope for America” is to “turn from our wicked ways and ask god [sic] to heal our land” and “the problem we have here in this country and in all of our states is that we no longer fear god” at New England Solemn Assembly in Plymouth Massachusetts.

Now Kevin Smith, head of Cornerstone Policy Research, is calling on the Democratic Party to apologize for the attack.

“The NHDP’s mischaracterization of Representative Bates’ faith are not only rooted in religious bigotry, but represents the height of hypocrisy for a party that supposedly prides itself in being tolerant of other’s beliefs,” Smith said. “ The NHDP owes Rep. Bates and the hundreds of thousands of Christians in this state an apology for his truly offensive and ignorant remarks.”

Yes, that was a trick question.  Nowhere in this speech does Bates call for the government to take any action at all.  Nor does Bates specify the “wicked ways,” except to say that Americans have turned away from God.  In fact, Bates makes clear that “the Republican Party is not our Savior,” which seems to indicate that Bates is talking about personal as well as national sins.  There is certainly room to disagree on what constitutes sin — that debate has existed ever since Moses smashed the tablets after seeing the golden calf — but in any case, Bates is calling for healing on a personal, individual level in order to improve the state of the nation, hardly a radical notion.  In the end, he quotes from a proclamation given by Abraham Lincoln which made the exact same point:

We have forgotten the gracious hand which has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving Grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.


Tolerance doesn’t mean freedom from criticism, of course. One can certainly challenge Bates’ argument that we have drifted away from God, or even the belief in God itself, without being intolerant. But to demonize someone as a theocrat for offering what is not only a mainstream Christian belief but also a mainstream American political belief is not just intolerant, but absolutely daft as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if New Hampshire Democrats start looking for a new mouthpiece, and soon.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Then voters can vote them out, if they don’t like it. The bottom line, and original thread, was whether or not this individual was pushing for a “theocracy”. It’s ridiculous for the N.H. Dem to say that he was and shows just how out of touch the Democrat party has become.

The Zoo Keeper on December 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

NH has been so contaminated by swarms of legals crossing their southern border to escape from Massachusetts that it is hard to tell the left from the right anymore. (Hint: wait till hunting season: the right wears flourescent orange and the left writes letters to the editor about animal rights….)

Don L on December 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Anyone else notice the small g “god” throughout the story? No Bible thumping clingy regime for the NH Journal! Truth to Power, baby!!!

Hucklebuck on December 16, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Then voters can vote them out, if they don’t like it. The bottom line, and original thread, was whether or not this individual was pushing for a “theocracy”. It’s ridiculous for the N.H. Dem to say that he was and shows just how out of touch the Democrat party has become.

The Zoo Keeper on December 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

It was actually whether he was attempting to impose a Bible Belt Social Agenda, not a theocracy.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

For the first time, I’m proud to be an American. And that final blockquote must be sticking in Allahpundit’s craw.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2010 at 4:46 PM

So Jimbo thinks that a “Bible Belt Social Agenda” is bad. Of course he does. How DARE churches think that they have anything of value to contribute to society! How dare Christians think that their ideas might have some merit! In fact, Jimbo, isn’t it true that All Christian ideas are bad? The world would be such a better place if outdated concepts like fidelity, honor, and keeping one’s word, along with recognizing that there is someone to be accountable to for your actions; if those ideas were replaced with their opposites!

By golly, how dare anyone think that unlimited glorification of all things sexual is a bad thing! Imagine the horror if people actually kept it in their pants instead of waving around all their sexual kinks! Why, people might be responsible, and we can’t have that!

Vanceone on December 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM

It was actually whether he was attempting to impose a Bible Belt Social Agenda, not a theocracy.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Then the words by his adversaries were quite ill chosen. “Religious tirade” is a sword which cuts both ways, but causes much sharper cuts to the wielder when they deny another person’s beliefs than when they promote their own beliefs.

Now, what is a Bible Belt Social Agenda? Can you be specific so we can have a true basis for argument?

So Kirsten

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM

He said it in a church. He’s an elected representative. The strong implication is that he means to have the government take some action consistent with what he said.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 12:46 PM

And for some reason, this is only a problem with Republicans do it. When Obama and Hillary go speak in churches, it’s all fine and good and even their sudden Southern accents are just funny but not malicious. When a Republican does it, suddenly it’s proof that we want a theocracy. That’s tired and lazy thinking.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

There are some murky waters in that statement. Bates may not specify the “wicked ways,” but in the context of the well-known Republican social agenda, it’s perfectly clear he doesn’t just mean turning away from god.

Maybe to an atheist, but it’s not at all clear to me, as a Christian. There is no other sin worth talking about aside from turning away from God. Everything else is meaningless. That’s actually the point of the prayer, which as Ed pointed out, is a common one.

Not that it isn’t a little uncomfortable, granting Ed’s interpretation, to hear an elected official argue that the “only hope” for our nation is to remove disbelief. As a disbeliever, being the only thing apparently holding the other 80-95% of the country back from success, I think a little concern over his sentiment is justified.

And what exactly is your concern? That he wants to convert you? That’s what it means to be a Christian. That’s what the good ones try to do. It’s what someone who cares at all about you will try to do if it’s at all possible. The ones who hate you or care nothing at all for you are the ones who won’t try and tell you your beliefs are wrong. Those are the kind who wouldn’t tell you that you’re about to walk into traffic, and that’s really a sincere equivalent.

You don’t have to agree, but that doesn’t make you right.

So, really, isn’t the bigger issue that yet another social conservative doesn’t know what’s wrong, and doesn’t have the will to fix it?

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Does this prove that? Or does it just prove that this is also his priority?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Then the words by his adversaries were quite ill chosen. “Religious tirade” is a sword which cuts both ways, but causes much sharper cuts to the wielder when they deny another person’s beliefs than when they promote their own beliefs.

Now, what is a Bible Belt Social Agenda? Can you be specific so we can have a true basis for argument?

So Kirsten

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Religious tirade was over the top. Go back to the prior page and look at the links in thuja’s post at 2:48. I think it’s fair to say this is a Bible Belt social agenda.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM

And for some reason, this is only a problem with Republicans do it. When Obama and Hillary go speak in churches, it’s all fine and good and even their sudden Southern accents are just funny but not malicious. When a Republican does it, suddenly it’s proof that we want a theocracy. That’s tired and lazy thinking.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Gotta disagree. When this guy says it, he’s telling people that he’s acting on his beliefs in an official capacity. When’s the last time Obama or Hillary went into a church and said that they’re planning to tax people more so the US can increase its aid to the poor, for instance?

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:16 PM

The implication is that he would act consistent with his past practices and his type of Christian beliefs.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM

And? Is the implication that he would work against his past practices and beliefs a superior one?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM

It was actually whether he was attempting to impose a Bible Belt Social Agenda, not a theocracy.

And how, exactly, is he doing that by simply speaking his mind?

englishqueen01 on December 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM

The implication is that he would act consistent with his past practices and his type of Christian beliefs.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM
And? Is the implication that he would work against his past practices and beliefs a superior one?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Then don’t complain when people say he’s trying to impose his religious agenda on people. You can’t have it both ways.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Gotta disagree.

I assumed as much from the thread.

When’s the last time Obama or Hillary went into a church and said that they’re planning to tax people more so the US can increase its aid to the poor, for instance?

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Seriously? We’ve heard those kinds of justification for everything from unemployment to health care reform to fake whatever you want to call it amnesty, and we’ve heard it from everyone from Obama to Pelosi. Do I need to find actual links? I can’t imagine it’ll take me too long.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Then don’t complain when people say he’s trying to impose his religious agenda on people. You can’t have it both ways.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM

No, now you’re saying something different. Acting according to his own beliefs doesn’t mean he’s forcing theocracy on anyone. That’s a huge leap.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

And how, exactly, is he doing that by simply speaking his mind?

englishqueen01 on December 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM

He wasn’t speaking his mind. He was in a church in MA, not NH, which belongs to a group of churches that belong to the informal group that thuja notes, and where he asked for forgiveness for the nation’s sins and asked that the elected leaders govern in a Godly manner (or something very similar). He is a social conservative and tried to get several socially conservative bills passed in NH. He got a ton of applause when he mentioned that the GOP had made strong inroads in NH politics recently. Less so when he indicated that the GOP was not the answer (that’s probably because some of the GOP types in Mass and NH are not socially conservative).

Connect the dots.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM

No, now you’re saying something different. Acting according to his own beliefs doesn’t mean he’s forcing theocracy on anyone. That’s a huge leap.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Oh no … the mere suggestion that a politician is religious, especially Christian, much less actually refer to God is a sure sign that said politician has a nefarious agenda to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting population of the United States of America.

Take my word for it … there’s a plot underfoot. Pay no regard to the Islamists who are actually trying to impose a theocracy, they’ll fail. It’s the Christians you have to watch out for.

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM

No, now you’re saying something different. Acting according to his own beliefs doesn’t mean he’s forcing theocracy on anyone. That’s a huge leap.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:21 PM

The Dems didn’t say “theocracy”. They said “social agenda”.

http://nhdp.org/release_details.asp?id=300

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I imagine that Jimbo will freak when I tell him that the US Secretary of Agriculture spoke at the Mormon General Conference… except that said Secretary was, in fact, one of the Mormon Leaders, Ezra Taft Benson. Also a well known Anti-Communist.

So, of course, all of Benson’s remarks would have been an official statement of what he intended to do as Secretary of Agriculture, right? Especially since he frequently said stuff like how we need to pray, to pay attention to God, etc. He was rather against gay marriage too, as I recall.

Or it could have just been the fact that Benson was an Apostle and, contrary to Jimbo’s belief, COULD function in his role as an Apostle without trying to require every Farmer in America to convert to Mormonism as a condition to plant their wheat….. Since, of course, we all know that religious zealots will force people at the point of a gun to convert or die if they have a chance. Oh, wait–those are the religions that Jimbo and fellow liberals love, like Islam. Christians don’t do that, but they sure are treated that way.

Vanceone on December 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Connect the dots.

I’ve connected the dots, and this is what I see: nations that work tirelessly to remove God from the public sphere – communist, socialist, and Nazi – are the ones we should be fearing more than what Bates said in MA.

The more this nation decides that moral relativism is the way to go, the more things get irreversibly screwed up. I’ve “connected the dots” and conclude I have less to fear living in a Christian theocracy than I do living in Obama’s America or an America run by other liberals.

Others have probably pointed this out, but I note a complete and utter lack of concern when Democrat politicians go into churches and talk about God. So it either means 1) liberals know the Democrats are just doing it for show or 2) the religion in question is more concerned with politics than saving souls.

As darwin above said, I’d love to see as much passion from liberals when Islamists talk about jihad and caliphates. But, oh no, that’d be insensitive and an affront to cultural diversity and some other such nonsense.

The hypocrisy is astounding, and it’s laughable that any time a Christian opens his mouth in public liberals are hysterically whining about a coming theocracy that never seems to materialize…

englishqueen01 on December 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM

The Dems didn’t say “theocracy”. They said “social agenda”.

Fine, then I amend my statement:

I have less to fear by living under a Christian “social agenda” than I do living under a liberal “social agenda.”

englishqueen01 on December 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM

The Dems didn’t say “theocracy”. They said “social agenda”.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:27 PM

OK, and tell me how that’s different than this:

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the Biblical reference, you know the gospel reference of the Word. And that Word is — we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM

I am a Christian. An ordained, conservative, Southern Baptist minister in fact. I’m not in the conversion business. Conversion is your choice. I’m here to tell the truth. Jesus never tried to convert anybody to anything. He is The Truth and He told the truth to anybody who would listen. Sometimes he’d ask a question then walk away. That’s what the good ones do. That doesnt mean I’m not concerned about your eternal destination, but the choice is ultimately yours. I just make the case.

And unlike Jimbo3, I dont see Bates implying anything. Bates is right. America has seriously walked away from God in the last 50 years. America is making the same, exact same, mistake ancient Israel did.

abcurtis on December 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Oh no … the mere suggestion that a politician is religious, especially Christian, much less actually refer to God is a sure sign that said politician has a nefarious agenda to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting population of the United States of America.

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Depends on whether or not the politician has a D after his name.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM

The Dems didn’t say “theocracy”. They said “social agenda”.

http://nhdp.org/release_details.asp?id=300

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Meh.

Socially conservative Republican gives a speech in a church. Democratic Party throws a hissy fit and resorts to “the politics of fear”.

Slow news day, I guess.

malclave on December 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM

http://nhdp.org/release_details.asp?id=300

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Oh, and I’m glad to see from your link that the New Hampshire Democrats are condemning Obama’s policies to date… “Granite State citizens want their elected representatives focused on creating jobs, not abandoning children to abuse and neglect nor trampling on individual rights.”

malclave on December 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I just make the case.

abcurtis on December 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM

That’s what most mean when they say you’re trying to convert someone, and that’s what I mean when I wrote it earlier. I’m not saying you’d try to force it. You can’t anymore than you can force someone to like you, but you can try and make the case, and that’s all I was trying to imply with my statement. I suppose there’s a better word than convert, but I don’t know it.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I suppose there’s a better word than convert, but I don’t know it.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Convince?

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Sorry. Meant NH, not Vermont.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, we know. All those small New England states look alike.

Del Dolemonte on December 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM

Convince?

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Well, try to convince is probably more accurate, but I can’t think of one word except maybe preach?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Yeah, we know. All those small New England states look alike.

Del Dolemonte on December 16, 2010 at 5:51 PM

They kinda really do to some of us down here. I mean, there’s no mistaking Texas or Louisiana.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM

NH has been so contaminated by swarms of legals crossing their southern border to escape from Massachusetts that it is hard to tell the left from the right anymore. (Hint: wait till hunting season: the right wears flourescent orange and the left writes letters to the editor about animal rights….)

Don L on December 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Most of the NH Leftists are concentrated in the southern part of the State, about as far north as Concord. North of that, you have some isolated pockets, mainly associated with college towns like Hanover (Dartmouth College) and Plymouth (Plymouth State University). Also some around the big Lakes and up in ski country.

Del Dolemonte on December 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM

I imagine that Jimbo will freak when I tell him that the US Secretary of Agriculture spoke at the Mormon General Conference… except that said Secretary was, in fact, one of the Mormon Leaders, Ezra Taft Benson. Also a well known Anti-Communist.

So, of course, all of Benson’s remarks would have been an official statement of what he intended to do as Secretary of Agriculture, right? Especially since he frequently said stuff like how we need to pray, to pay attention to God, etc. He was rather against gay marriage too, as I recall.

Or it could have just been the fact that Benson was an Apostle and, contrary to Jimbo’s belief, COULD function in his role as an Apostle without trying to require every Farmer in America to convert to Mormonism as a condition to plant their wheat….. Since, of course, we all know that religious zealots will force people at the point of a gun to convert or die if they have a chance. Oh, wait–those are the religions that Jimbo and fellow liberals love, like Islam. Christians don’t do that, but they sure are treated that way.

Vanceone on December 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Other than Romney (who had to moderate his social policies to get elected because he lived in MA), show me three Mormons who have voted against the standard Mormon positions on social issues. (Reid is pro-gambling, but otherwise seems to vote along the standard Mormon line).

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM

I imagine that Jimbo will freak when I tell him that the US Secretary of Agriculture spoke at the Mormon General Conference… except that said Secretary was, in fact, one of the Mormon Leaders, Ezra Taft Benson. Also a well known Anti-Communist.

…..Vanceone on December 16, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Other than Romney (who had to moderate his social positions), can you name three Mormons in the US Legislature who vote significantly different than standard Mormon policies on social issues? I can’t think of any (other than Reid on gambling and, I think, Hatch on cell research).

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM

(other than Reid on gambling and, I think, Hatch on cell research).

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM

There aren’t that many Mormons in the US Legislature (or in the US for that matter). You’ve just named the only three I know and have agreed that all of them have violated standard Mormon policies in one way or another. I’m not sure I understand your argument.

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Jimbo, we’re waiting for your answer to this:

“And that Word,” Pelosi said, “is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.”

The Zoo Keeper on December 16, 2010 at 6:22 PM

You are such a coward jimbo.

Inanemergencydial on December 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM

And what exactly is your concern? That he wants to convert you? That’s what it means to be a Christian. That’s what the good ones try to do. It’s what someone who cares at all about you will try to do if it’s at all possible. The ones who hate you or care nothing at all for you are the ones who won’t try and tell you your beliefs are wrong. Those are the kind who wouldn’t tell you that you’re about to walk into traffic, and that’s really a sincere equivalent.

You don’t have to agree, but that doesn’t make you right.

It’s one thing to tell me I’m wrong about religion. I’m not too concerned about the fate of my soul because I don’t believe I have one. It’s another to say that myself and others being wrong about religion is somehow threatening America’s survival. I think it’s natural, considering he’s in a position to do something about it, to wonder how far he’s willing to go to fight the scourge of disbelief.

Does this prove that? Or does it just prove that this is also his priority?

Esthier on December 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM

According to Bates, it’s the “only hope for America.” I have no questions whatsoever what his priorities are.

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM

According to Bates, it’s the “only hope for America.” I have no questions whatsoever what his priorities are.

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM

It’s a damn good thing you weren’t around at the founding of this country. Mention religion today and people scream Theocracy! Back then, a very different story.

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Conversion is your choice.

abcurtis on December 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM

“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
John 6:65

Kjeil on December 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM

It’s a damn good thing you weren’t around at the founding of this country. Mention religion today and people scream Theocracy! Back then, a very different story.

darwin on December 16, 2010 at 7:01 PM

You’re right, it is a good thing. I’m glad to live in a time when civil liberties are taken more seriously.

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Zookeeper and Esthier, will try to answer you tomorrow. Work is busy.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Jimbo,

I have few problems with the agenda. I guess I’m a “Bible Belt” Catholic.

Repealing same sex marriage.

Ok, libs pull a “methodist pavilion” and cons kick the props out from the enablement of “methodist pavilion”.

Requiring parental consent for medical procedures and medications provided to minors.

Parents no longer pick up the pieces when boyfriend’s mother takes their daughter in for an abortion.

Relating to parental rights. Providing that the state shall not abridge the responsibility of parents for the health, education, and welfare of their children.

State can’t force kids to take classes of which the parents disapprove. State can’t give child abortion against parents’ will. State can’t charge parents for doing immoral things to their kids.

Including “unborn child” in the definition of “another” for the purpose of first and second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.

What’s the problem here? We’re already half way there in places like California or Massachusetts, both of which recognize fetal homicide with very careful cutouts for abortion. Basically, if mom thinks her child was human, or might have thought he was human, and the fetal child dies in the commission of a crime, that’s homicide. Now, if mom didn’t think fetal child was human, and doctor kills him, it isn’t homicide. The difference is solely the will of the mother as to whether said child is human or not — much as a slave’s humanity depended on the view of the slaveholder in an earlier day. Science says fetal child is human, so why not accord all the rights of humanity to the child?

Relative to freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union.

What’s not to like about a right to work without paying shakedown money to a gang?

Requiring the Congress of the United States of America to reaffirm its adherence to the Constitution of the United States regarding international agreements and treaties.
Support.

I don’t see the reason for this, so maybe someone else can enlighten me as to what this does over the Oath of Office every congresscritter takes?

Not prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a public building.

I’m sort of against this. I can imagine being on the jury and having the friends of a gangbanger take revenge upon me for finding their peer guilty. Check the irons in certain places, such as the White House, the halls of Congress, the courts…

Establishing a committee to study voter fraud.

I’m sort of against this too. We have way too many committees which accomplish little. We know how voter fraud occurs (double voting, registering in multiple locales, dead people voting,…) All fixable with a national id card linked to a database. Make the verification of said id card mandatory before voting. In fact, since we value one person one vote so much, link everyone to a national database which counts how many times and in how many states they vote, and if they violate the law, make it a felony and strip them of their voting rights forever.

Adding an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.

Yup. Enough forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, or forcing adoption agencies to hand over kids to gays.

Establishing a joint committee on the constitutionality of acts, orders, laws, statutes, regulations, and rules of the government of the United States of America in order to protect state sovereignty.

Disagree. The Union won the Civil War some 150 years ago, and the South, state by state, insisted on denying the rights of blacks, thus leading to the 14th Amendment. The States Rights game is over — the southern States showed they had no intention of allowing all men their Constitutional rights, and we now have the Federal Government as the guarantor of those rights.

unclesmrgol on December 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM

“And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
John 6:65

Kjeil on December 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM

abcurtis is still right. “given unto him of” means “granted by”. That means that you still must make a choice, and God will see what is in your heart and choose Himself. Nobody is foreordained to conversion but neither are they forestalled.

unclesmrgol on December 17, 2010 at 12:15 AM

NH is full of Mass refugees, inbred morons, and people with personality disorders. The scenery is nice in the Fall.

SurferDoc on December 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM

It’s another to say that myself and others being wrong about religion is somehow threatening America’s survival. I think it’s natural, considering he’s in a position to do something about it, to wonder how far he’s willing to go to fight the scourge of disbelief.

It is, I’ll agree, but why not actually wait and see what he’s willing to do? Just arguing that people need to pray isn’t proof that he wants to impose anything on you.

According to Bates, it’s the “only hope for America.” I have no questions whatsoever what his priorities are.

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM

This is common among Christians. It’s much more innocuous than you seem to believe it is. We believe the only hope for anyone/anything is Christ and Christ alone. It’s not exceptional to extend that to America as it is a thing.

Zookeeper and Esthier, will try to answer you tomorrow. Work is busy.

Jimbo3 on December 16, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I didn’t think it was a question that needed a thoughtful reply, but I understand you being busy.

Esthier on December 20, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2