www.wnd.com
House adopts plan for 'volunteer' corps
Also requires new evaluation of 'mandatory' service for all
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 19, 2009
4:58 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.
The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."
The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.
It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.
WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.
The video of his statements is posted here:
The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."
Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, "would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:
"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."
According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."
"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.
"On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.
"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama," the commentary said.
"Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary," the commentary said.
"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. ... The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."
Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. ... There shall be a superintendent for each camp."
The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."
Another portion of the bill talks about a "service learning" plan that will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."
A forum participant noted, "I wonder what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."
Formal announcements about the plan suggested something far different, picking a provision far down in the 200 pages of legislation to highlight.
According to a Business Wire statement released by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill "would formally authorize federal support for establishing the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America as a National Day of Service and Remembrance."
That provision is tucked into the far reaches of the legislation, but Schumer discussed it as if it were the primary point.
"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said Schumer. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning – it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."
On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."
The blog noted, such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.
At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans' Corps and Opportunity Corps.
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate.
WND reported earlier on Obama's Colorado Springs campaign speech when he sought a civilian security force as big and well-funded as the military – with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars.
WND later reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
Only you and the Whack Nut Daily could twist volunteerism, community service and teaching youth social/civic responsibility into a bad thing. :rolleyes:
A volenteer is someone who freely gives their time to others. This is not the definition for that and it bothers me to require this of our youth. Call it what you want it reminds me too much of the youth corps in Germany, Russia and China.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 08:35:40 AM
volenteer
I can't find that word in my dictionary.
Of course, my dictionary is rather old. It dates from the time when people cared about using proper spelling and grammar in public discourse.
I don't like this crap either...when is the words volunteer and mandatory service ever go together..?
I know it is a world net daily article, but the bill was passed...and I'm not to keen on government develeoping mandatory volunteerism...something about that does not sit well with me...the gov needs to quit trying to make itself bigger....THAT is my main dislike about this Pres and the libs.
The sky is falling!
You freaks need to learn to read...it is not mandatory for anyone...only asks that those who expect to get government money (i.e., grants) do something for it. Is ROTC nazi? You hypocrits are always bitching about people wanting something for nothing and now you bitch about a measure that would require something be given back. Make up your freakin' minds already.
mcgonser: So a community service requirement to graduate high school is wrong? or does it teach a lesson? How is his propsal (the real one) any different than what is already required in most schools? You conservatives are honestly talking out both sides of your mouth. You rail against social progams and the decline of morality of America's youth, but when a propsal to require responsibility of our youth comes from *gasp* a Democrat you try to demonize it.
Here, I found the definition: My dictionary has a cross reference to check anything close to the spelling(cool)
vol⋅un⋅teer /ˌvɒlənˈtɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vol-uhn-teer] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.
2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.
3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army.
4. Law. a. a person whose actions are not founded on any legal obligation so to act.
b. a person who intrudes into a matter that does not concern him or her, as a person who pays the debt of another where he or she is neither legally nor morally bound to do so and has no interest to protect in making the payment.
5. Agriculture. a volunteer plant.
6. (initial capital letter) a native or inhabitant of Tennessee (used as a nickname).
–adjective 7. of, pertaining to, or being a volunteer or volunteers: a volunteer fireman.
8. Agriculture. growing without being seeded, planted, or cultivated by a person; springing up spontaneously.
–verb (used without object) 9. to offer oneself for some service or undertaking.
10. to enter service or enlist as a volunteer.
–verb (used with object) 11. to offer (oneself or one's services) for some undertaking or purpose.
12. to give, bestow, or perform voluntarily: to volunteer a song.
13. to say, tell, or communicate voluntarily: to volunteer an explanation.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 20, 2009, 08:54:33 AM
mcgonser: So a community service requirement to graduate high school is wrong? or does it teach a lesson? How is his propsal (the real one) any different than what is already required in most schools? You conservatives are honestly talking out both sides of your mouth. You rail against social progams and the decline of morality of America's youth, but when a propsal to require responsibility of our youth comes from *gasp* a Democrat you try to demonize it.
I believe that the goverment does not need to teach our children lessons. That is up the parents, who might set an example themselves, as volunteers and their teachers. The decline in morality is not the goverments fault and should be corrected by the people(parents) who are at fault. My ideas are not only republican thoughts. I have many democrats who feel the same way. Just because you are a Republican or Democrat does not make everything you think that party's idea. I had a good raising and know what is right or wrong without others telling me so. I definitely don't need the goverment telling me what to think or what is right. As far as I have seen no party has shown me they know the difference, only individuals.
Quote from: Gardengirl on March 19, 2009, 10:58:28 PM
The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."
What was this person reading? It certainly wasn't any of the three versions of H.R. 1388.
Here ... try this! I will post a link to the bill. Open it up and see if you can find phrase that the WND put in quotes within ANY of the three versions.
I'll go you one better. Open up the bill in your browser - hit 'Control-F' and type 'expected' (one of the words in the quote.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:)
:rant: :rant: :rant:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 08:55:29 AM
Here, I found the definition: My dictionary has a cross reference to check anything close to the spelling(cool)
vol⋅un⋅teer
Oh, good!!! You DO have a dictionary.
Why didn't you use it to check your 'volenteer' BEFORE you posted?
Quote from: Bo D on March 20, 2009, 09:06:50 AM
Oh, good!!! You DO have a dictionary.
Why didn't you use it to check your 'volenteer' BEFORE you posted?
Because I am not hung up on perfect spelling or grammar. I would rather concentrate on the subject.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 09:15:00 AM
Because I am not hung up on perfect spelling or grammar. I would rather concentrate on the subject.
Not doing too well there, either.
Did you go read the ACTUAL BILL?
No?
Then I conclude that the reason for your poor spelling and grammar is the same reason you would rather be spoon-fed your 'opinions' from an extremist rag such as the WND.
Laziness.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 09:15:00 AM
Because I am not hung up on perfect spelling or grammar.
It requires effort?
Actually, we have these neat tv stations here that broadcasts the senate and house when they are in session. When there is something I want to watch, I do. So I guess you could say I get it from the horses mouth. I do my own research and collect my own info. I was just giving my opinion on a post subject., without criticizing it or putting it down. Go figure
Quote from: Exterminator on March 20, 2009, 08:49:12 AM
The sky is falling!
You freaks need to learn to read...it is not mandatory for anyone...only asks that those who expect to get government money (i.e., grants) do something for it. Is ROTC nazi? You hypocrits are always bitching about people wanting something for nothing and now you bitch about a measure that would require something be given back. Make up your freakin' minds already.
I'm not claiming the sky is falling....I'm just not too trusting of this government to be honest with you....but, you are right, IF that is all it is, then it may be a good thing. But I am still not a fan of anything that increases the size of our government. I am cautiously optimistic, and need to see more about this before I get excited.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 09:31:31 AM
Actually, we have these neat tv stations here that broadcasts the senate and house when they are in session. When there is something I want to watch, I do. So I guess you could say I get it from the horses mouth. I do my own research and collect my own info. I was just giving my opinion on a post subject., without criticizing it or putting it down. Go figure
Bo D, come on fess up. You and Ex are related, right?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 09:31:31 AM
Actually, we have these neat tv stations here that broadcasts the senate and house when they are in session. When there is something I want to watch, I do. So I guess you could say I get it from the horses mouth. I do my own research and collect my own info. I was just giving my opinion on a post subject., without criticizing it or putting it down. Go figure
Strike three!!!!!
If you had truly done your own research, you would have known that the article was nothing more than a lie posted by a hired goon to keep jerking the knees out from under that portion of our society who have never learned to think for themselves.
I have to agree with Sandy here. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. High school graduates in most areas have to have a service project in order to meet requirements. You can't hand out something for nothing or all the conservatives cry foul. I think this will help to give students another outlet instead of sports being the only focus in most public schools.
Sad really the spin that the social programs are getting by the uninformed conservative group. :-[
Quote from: kimmi on March 20, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
...the uninformed conservative group.
You're being redundant. :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on March 20, 2009, 10:33:11 AM
Strike three!!!!!
If you had truly done your own research, you would have known that the article was nothing more than a lie posted by a hired goon to keep jerking the knees out from under that portion of our society who have never learned to think for themselves.
Prove it is a lie. What are your resources???????? Put your facts where your mouth is. I have noticed that you tell us what things are but without actual proof.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 20, 2009, 11:54:50 AM
Prove it is a lie. What are your resources???????? Put your facts where your mouth is. I have noticed that you tell us what things are but without actual proof.
WTF? Are you totally incapable of following a thread? I gave you a link to the ACTUAL BILL on the Library of Congress website and instructions on how to search it for the quote from the article.
I'm sorry, but I don't have enough money to pay Rush Limbaugh to post it so you can read it.
Quote from: Bo D on March 20, 2009, 09:02:40 AM
What was this person reading? It certainly wasn't any of the three versions of H.R. 1388.
Here ... try this! I will post a link to the bill. Open it up and see if you can find phrase that the WND put in quotes within ANY of the three versions.
I'll go you one better. Open up the bill in your browser - hit 'Control-F' and type 'expected' (one of the words in the quote.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:)
:rant: :rant: :rant:
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
Hum.... :shrug:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:)
There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.1388 for the 111th Congress
1 . GIVE Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.1388.IH]
2 . GIVE Act (Reported in House)[H.R.1388.RH]
3 . GIVE Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.1388.EH]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111nt4BEH:: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111nt4BEH::)
Quote from: Exterminator on March 20, 2009, 11:46:38 AM
You're being redundant. :biggrin:
Sorry! It is starting to feel like Groundhog's Day with Bill Murray in here! :yes:
Quote from: kimmi on March 20, 2009, 12:30:50 PM
Sorry! It is starting to feel like Groundhog's Day with Bill Murray in here! :yes:
Somebody needs to kill that groundhog! :rant:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 20, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1388:)
There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.1388 for the 111th Congress
1 . GIVE Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.1388.IH]
2 . GIVE Act (Reported in House)[H.R.1388.RH]
3 . GIVE Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.1388.EH]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111nt4BEH:: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111nt4BEH::)
Thanks, Pale Pony! :biggrin:
See what I mean by spoon-feeding them? They get spoiled, fat and lazy.
Can't help it. This is what I get when I click your link:
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov
So, you can't do you own search?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 20, 2009, 12:38:51 PM
So, you can't do you own search?
It's that darn spoon-feeding again!
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on March 20, 2009, 12:34:14 PM
Thanks, Pale Pony! :biggrin:
See what I mean by spoon-feeding them? They get spoiled, fat and lazy.
:lipsrsealed2:
(On the advice of my rider, I invoke my rights as guaranteed in the 1st and 5th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America). :lipsrsealed2:
Quote from: Bo D on March 20, 2009, 12:40:20 PM
It's that darn spoon-feeding again!
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
hahahaha
Finally got around that link and there are still amendments which haven't passed yet so I'm going to with hold judgment until I see what those do. I do remember him saying something to the effect of diverting some of the military funding to this and wondering how something like this is going to replace anything military related.
Quote from: me on March 20, 2009, 01:15:49 PM
Finally got around that link and there are still amendments which haven't passed yet so I'm going to with hold judgment until I see what those do. I do remember him saying something to the effect of diverting some of the military funding to this and wondering how something like this is going to replace anything military related.
What in the world do you mean by "amendments which haven't passed yet"
The bill has passed the House and is published in it's final House form. Did you see the words "GIVE Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or
Passed by House)[H.R.1388.EH]"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
Quote from: me on March 20, 2009, 01:43:35 PM
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
Again, you insist on being spoon-fed by the Sunlight Foundation instead of going to read the actual bill as passed in its final form,
amendments and all.
But since you insist, did you see those little words to the left of the list of the amendments - Pass and Offered?
Hint - "Pass" means included in the bill. "Offered" means it didn't pass muster.
Ya know Bo D the only thing I posted in this thread was that the link didn't work when I clicked it. I said nothing about the story that was posted either way but yet you and the others start on me like I was ignorant and was believing what the story said. WTF I was just saying the links didn't work when I clicked them and showing what I got I didn't even comment on the story one way or the other. Then I post a link to track the bill and you, again, figure I'm disputing what you say. It also has links to the other amendments and summary's. Quit being so defensive and ready to jump someone when you have no clue whether they are going to agree with you or what they might be thinking. If the bill has already made it through the Senate and been signed by Obama to become law in this form it will show up in the next few days but as of this posting the update was done on the 18th of March. Maybe they were updating the other information and I just happened to have clicked the links at the wrong time or something.
QuoteSearch results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
I just know they didn't work at the time I clicked them. It's really sad when you think you have to not only twist what people say but you also feel you have to start jumping a person in defense of something when they haven't even given an opinion one way or the other on the subject. Damn people get a grip will ya?
Quote from: me on March 20, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
Ya know Bo D the only thing I posted in this thread was that the link didn't work when I clicked it. I said nothing about the story that was posted either way but yet you and the others start on me like I was ignorant and was believing what the story said. WTF I was just saying the links didn't work when I clicked them and showing what I got I didn't even comment on the story one way or the other. Then I post a link to track the bill and you, again, figure I'm disputing what you say. It also has links to the other amendments and summary's. Quit being so defensive and ready to jump someone when you have no clue whether they are going to agree with you or what they might be thinking. If the bill has already made it through the Senate and been signed by Obama to become law in this form it will show up in the next few days but as of this posting the update was done on the 18th of March. Maybe they were updating the other information and I just happened to have clicked the links at the wrong time or something. I just know they didn't work at the time I clicked them. It's really sad when you think you have to not only twist what people say but you also feel you have to start jumping a person in defense of something when they haven't even given an opinion one way or the other on the subject. Damn people get a grip will ya?
Yeah, yeah ... we know your history here. Go pick some of those English grapes, will ya?
It must be that time of the month. I didn't think the moon was full?
:kissit: :finger2: :finger01:
Quote from: me on March 20, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
:kissit: :finger2: :finger01:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
I win!
:rolleyes:
:owned:
Well excuse me for pointing out the links didn't work and posting one that did. I won't do that again. :no:
You are such a nasty, angry and stupid little boy Bo. I have read in wonder how you and your little troop attack anyone who does not agree with your opinion. You guys???people?? whatever, are the ones showing your ignorance. People have a right to their opinion no matter what you think. You expect to come off as some kind of gurus(lol) who know it all. Instead you come off petty and ridiculous. Others try to overlook this but you guys give no quarter to anyone else. What is your problem? I hope I have been plain enough in my opinion on this. I am well aware that nothing will change, but it you think you can run me off this forum,. think again. JMO
mcgonser: you silly lil' woman no one wants to run you away. We're one big happy disfunctional...er...politically diverse happy family.
I'm starting to have deja vu. I've heard this all somewhere before... :think:
Oh and btw everyone has a right to their opinion but not everyone's opinion is valid. Just b/c someone points out that your opinion is wrong based on the facts doesn't mean that you don't have the right to be wrong or that they're mean :biggrin:
Fact is I still didn't voice an opinion and still got jumped as though I had. :razz:
But Me you can't claim to have read something or state a fact and not give the source. That is hearsay which means it has little to no value.
Ummk. . . I will now censor myself and not say anything. Back to the games I go.
I should take my cue from PH and shut up. I guess you could tell Bo touched a nerve with his simpering, hateful comments. By the way where are the facts to back up the trashy talk? I do know that 3 people can read the same thing and come up with different opinions. The word is opinion. I don't try to pass myself off as a know it all genius. When you make guesses about someones intelligence, time of month or political view where is the facts? I see. Thats what I thought.
If 3 people read the same thing and form 3 different opinions about the meaning of the thing then 2 are wrong. The facts were contained in the links that gentlemanly Bo posted. The original article is opinion and mostly wrong according to the facts.
Quote from: kimmi on March 20, 2009, 06:37:06 PM
But Me you can't claim to have read something or state a fact and not give the source. That is hearsay which means it has little to no value.
Where did I say anything except the link don't work? The link I did find showed it hadn't been signed into law yet or been through the Senate so I said I would with hold judgment until it was finished. I DID NOT STATE AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT WAS POSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pelosi?
Quote from: me on March 20, 2009, 08:15:46 PM
Where did I say anything except the link don't work? The link I did find showed it hadn't been signed into law yet or been through the Senate so I said I would with hold judgment until it was finished. I DID NOT STATE AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT WAS POSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sooooo what's your opinion? :biggrin:
Same as the one I had when he brought it up when he was campaigning. The Peace Corp expanded. He didn't include older people in the speech he gave when he was campaigning but I don't think it is a bad idea the way he presented it.
It is not a lie. It is an expansion of an idea Dems have been trying to pass for years. But now uniforms are part of the deal and taking youth to "camps" to teach this. These are all ideas that communist Saul Alinsky has put forward to brainwash a captive youth. Obama learned this at his knee.
This is a free country. Volunteerism means just that. It doesn't mean being forced to do "volunteer" work. Also, there is word of putting kids into PRE-kindergarten. The damn government doesn't need to get hold of your kids for brainwashing any earlier than they already do.
OMG I new the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were Nazis all along! :rolleyes:
If you don't think pre-K is a good idea then you haven't been in a public kindergarten to see how many kids don't even know how to recognize their own name in print!
kimmi, You have just confirmed my suspicions: I saw a Boy Scout yesterday, and sure enough, he was wearing a BROWN shirt! :spooked:
And when kids get to kindergarten not recognizing their own name as written, knowing colors, some numbers or rudimentary alphabet, or unable to identify common animals, only two conclusions may be drawn: either the child is developmentally disabled, or the parents (and/or grandparents) have completely dropped the ball. They have seldom or never read to the child, and one wonders if they have ever really had a conversation with their child. Tots are walking miracles, full of questions and bursting with imagination and energy. It takes little effort to get them rolling, and this is how they learn, before they can read. But it's easier just to plop them down in front of the boob tube.
Quote from: kimmi on March 21, 2009, 07:05:18 AM
OMG I new the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were Nazis all along! :rolleyes:
If you don't think pre-K is a good idea then you haven't been in a public kindergarten to see how many kids don't even know how to recognize their own name in print!
I bet these two great orginizations really appreciate your putting them in the same group as Nazi youth. last I heard they were a volunteer org. like football, baseball, soccer, 4-H, FFA etc.
Shame on the parents who don't teach their kids the fundamentals to go to school. It is not my fault. I just thought that pre-kind was so parents wouldn't have to pay child care for their kids. The schools have our children too much as it is.
mcgonser: kimmi was just playing with us; as a teacher, she may have an appreciation for kids on a level the rest of us aren't so well versed with. And she wouldn't teach if she didn't LOVE the little monsters!
I've always thought pre-K was probably attractive to parents who really wanted to give their kids a leg up -- a head start, if you will, on their formal education. But you may be right, too. Some may be passing their parental responsibilities on to others, 'cause they're "just SOOOO busy". :mad:
In my one grandson's case a pre-k type school was a good thing because he is an only child and he needed to learn to interact with other kids. He could count, tie his shoes, and do some other things but just needed the interaction to come out of his extreme shyness. It did him a world of good.
Mdgonser that was my point. What gardengirl is describing is basically the same type of organization as the scouts and yet believes that Obama has some sort of hidden agenda to make them like a small nazi army. Preposterous!
But now uniforms are part of the deal and taking youth to "camps" to teach this. These are all ideas that communist Saul Alinsky has put forward to brainwash a captive youth.
Pa I wouldn't be so upset if parents would at least put those kids in front of Sesame Street or Reading Rainbow, but it isn't happening. You are right in that the parents and extended family has not done their job if these children don't come to Kindergarten with basic knowledge like colors, shapes, and counting. I can also see that some parents would use it for free daycare. With the cost of childcare these days, I can't say that I blame them. However, these parents will use this service for those aren't really caring about the amount of time "the man" is brainwashing their child - to put it in someone else's words.
Some children don't need it. Some need it for academics and some, like Me's grandson, needs it for social adaption. It should be available.
My question is? Why is important for kids to get oriented earlier than kindergarten? That use to be the year that they learned to stand in line, get along with others and sit down for more than 5 minutes. It just seems that we are pushing our kids earlier and earlier to adapt to society. JMO
Clearly you don't know the kinds of standards that are put into place now for promotion out of kindergarten. Kindergarten students are now reading, writing, and doing basic math. It isn't the old half day cut and paste that you remember.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 21, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
My question is? Why is important for kids to get oriented earlier than kindergarten? That use to be the year that they learned to stand in line, get along with others and sit down for more than 5 minutes. It just seems that we are pushing our kids earlier and earlier to adapt to society. JMO
Welcome to the world of NCLB!
I think the main factor is that kids then -- you, me, and many others on this forum, were raised differently. We were taught manners (I've used that word a lot today), respect for adults and the possessions of others, and the importance of learning. We had chores at home, which taught us responsibility, and we were disciplined when we were out of line. And we were NOT over-exposed to the electronic media crap that assails young-uns today. Like Dylan said a long time ago: the times they are a-changin'; and they will continue to do so. Maybe pre-K and formal day care are more needed today because they give kids something they used to get at home; it's not needed by the ones who are really being parented.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 20, 2009, 07:15:52 AM
Only you and the Whack Nut Daily could twist volunteerism, community service and teaching youth social/civic responsibility into a bad thing. :rolleyes:
You just defined all the attributes of a group of youth whom helped in kristallnacht. They were known as the Hitler Youth movement. I can envision the Mormons doing the same thing with the Scouts, as well. We need voluteer'ism, but not coerced, little darlings.
It is so true Pa. You wouldn't believe the number of parents who ask me how to raise their children knowing I don't have any of my own. It is funny how a few years of experience puts me on this end of the conversation rather than the "You wouldn't know because you don't have children!" side. The very first thing I tell them is routine and consistency. This is why children who are holy terrors are sometimes not like that at school. They learn the expectation. They know what each day will bring. There are few surprises or changes. They also thrive on rules and limits.
I wish there was a new parenting guru that maybe Oprah would highlight as the next best thing who would bring back good old fashioned manners, discipline, and respect. I had better get on with writing my book then! :biggrin: I could be the Dr. Spock of the 2000's!
"You GO, girl!" (Isn't that what Oprah says?)
Quote from: kimmi on March 21, 2009, 11:40:39 AM
It is so true Pa. You wouldn't believe the number of parents who ask me how to raise their children knowing I don't have any of my own. It is funny how a few years of experience puts me on this end of the conversation rather than the "You wouldn't know because you don't have children!" side. The very first thing I tell them is routine and consistency. This is why children who are holy terrors are sometimes not like that at school. They learn the expectation. They know what each day will bring. There are few surprises or changes. They also thrive on rules and limits.
I wish there was a new parenting guru that maybe Oprah would highlight as the next best thing who would bring back good old fashioned manners, discipline, and respect. I had better get on with writing my book then! :biggrin: I could be the Dr. Spock of the 2000's!
If you must write a book undo what Dr. Spock did. His theories ruined a whole generation at least, maybe two.
Quote from: me on March 21, 2009, 12:24:48 PM
If you must write a book undo what Dr. Spock did. His theories ruined a whole generation at least, maybe two.
So, whom do we blame the other generation's problems on? Who was the Dr Spock that gave us the the waring teens, the roaring twenties, the criminal thirties, the waring fourties, the racist fifties, the greedy 2000's. Just exactly which generation deserves more credit for being the right one, over those who Spock "destroyed"? I started in the 20's, but there have never been any "good old days", so where would you reach for the "right way"? The generation that gave and kept slavery as a system from before the US until the 1860's, Jim Crow after that? Sorry, don't buy the "old fashioned" ideal that doesn't exist.
Quote from: dan foster on March 21, 2009, 12:44:07 PM
So, whom do we blame the other generation's problems on? Who was the Dr Spock that gave us the the waring teens, the roaring twenties, the criminal thirties, the waring fourties, the racist fifties, the greedy 2000's. Just exactly which generation deserves more credit for being the right one, over those who Spock "destroyed"? I started in the 20's, but there have never been any "good old days", so where would you reach for the "right way"? The generation that gave and kept slavery as a system from before the US until the 1860's, Jim Crow after that? Sorry, don't buy the "old fashioned" ideal that doesn't exist.
Why are you such a nay sayer about everything Dan? You seem to be soured on just about everything from what I can see. Do you ever say anything up beat or positive? Are you that unhappy?
Boy, this thread is a sad reminder of what this forum has become. What ever happened to being able to discuss without name calling, and bashing? It used to be people could give their opinion here without all the anger and hate. People could discuss things in a civil manner without being snarky and rude. Man, we're all headed for hell in a hand basket, aren't we? So very,very sad. :no:
Quote from: me on March 21, 2009, 01:23:24 PM
Why are you such a nay sayer about everything Dan? You seem to be soured on just about everything from what I can see. Do you ever say anything up beat or positive? Are you that unhappy?
I am really happy. But, it is really easy to blame this group or that group, this person or that, for all the world's ills. It is especially easy for any one generation to claim they have it right and all others, especially the newest one, all wrong (the old-fart mentality). So, I didn't call anyone a name, I wasn't trying play down your upbeat assessment. I just disagree with it. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.
That's really why our local paper discontinued its "Hey Martha" forum. The upside: The Unknown Zone welcomed some of us with open arms -- now Ma & me got a buncha new friends! TYVM!
:smitten:
Quote from: me on March 21, 2009, 12:24:48 PM
If you must write a book undo what Dr. Spock did. His theories ruined a whole generation at least, maybe two.
Looks like you and kimmi were the ones complaining about all "those" people that lack the same "code" (good old fashioned manners, discipline, and respect). Are you that unhappy? Why such a naysayer? How is it that I have to be unhappy to disagree with you? Must be something wrong with me if I can't agree with you, huh? Very interesting. You seem to be a in the right thread espousing your views for others to follow. Sorry to draw this out, but you asked...
Quote from: dan foster on March 21, 2009, 06:22:39 PM
Looks like you and kimmi were the ones complaining about all "those" people that lack the same "code" (good old fashioned manners, discipline, and respect). Are you that unhappy? Why such a naysayer? How is it that I have to be unhappy to disagree with you? Must be something wrong with me if I can't agree with you, huh? Very interesting. You seem to be a in the right thread espousing your views for others to follow. Sorry to draw this out, but you asked...
Maybe it's the way you disagree Dan. You have to admit your post's are anything but nice most of the time and chocked full of negativity. You will have to admit the Spock generation are a bunch of I, Me, Mine, inconsiderate, spoiled rotten, shove the blame for their mistakes of on everyone else, bunch of cry babies.
Me I wouldn't worry about it. I mean I guess it is rude to point out the elephant in the room, but I seem to do that quite well. If that makes me rude, so be it!
Besides, I'm a Gen X'er which means it is because I have daddy issues! :razz:
Okey dokey what ever you say. I think I'm ready to kick back and play in the fun part of the forum for a few days anyway.... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on March 21, 2009, 07:13:28 PM
Maybe it's the way you disagree Dan. You have to admit your post's are anything but nice most of the time and chocked full of negativity. You will have to admit the Spock generation are a bunch of I, Me, Mine, inconsiderate, spoiled rotten, shove the blame for their mistakes of on everyone else, bunch of cry babies.
Just pointing out the obvious...not sure how that is rude. What is your generation, just out of curiosity?
*crickets*
Quote from: dan foster on March 21, 2009, 10:59:12 PM
Just pointing out the obvious...not sure how that is rude. What is your generation, just out of curiosity?
Ya know, I'm not sure. I think I am the "rock and roll is gonna put you in hell" generation. One of them thar baby boomers ya know..... :biggrin:
Quote from: me on March 22, 2009, 02:23:21 AM
Ya know, I'm not sure. I think I am the "rock and roll is gonna put you in hell" generation. One of them thar baby boomers ya know..... :biggrin:
Well, that would put you squarely in the Dr Spock generation. So, how spoiled and whiny are you? You certainly seem to have a problem if someone doesn't see things YOUR way :smile:
Quote from: dan foster on March 22, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
Well, that would put you squarely in the Dr Spock generation. So, how spoiled and whiny are you? You certainly seem to have a problem if someone doesn't see things YOUR way :smile:
You'd better think about that again. The Spock generation is the one after mine....:p~~~~~
I'm referring to this generation:
QuoteIn the 1960s Spock gained new fame as a pacifist and Vietnam War protester.
when people really started getting heavy into him.
Quote from: me on March 22, 2009, 01:31:38 PM
I'm referring to this generation: when people really started getting heavy into him.
Nice try at the deception, but your quote is out of context. His book was published in 1946 and just in time to catch ALL the boomer infants. Or, were you trying to suggest, with your deceptive quote, that no one read the book until the 1960's? :smile: As usual, your Spock upbringing is showing through; get your way at all cost, even by cheating. Thanks, you just proved your own point about "those" people. :biggrin:
"Most members of the post-WWII generation of tots and toddlers probably didn't know the name, Dr. Benjamin Spock, until they were of college age, and heard of him as an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War.(the actual context of your quote, shame, shame)
...
How important was Dr. Spock? Important enough that
the demographic he influenced-- the baby boomers-- is sometimes referred to as the "Spock generation." And what you think of this generation-- healthy and influential, or spoiled and self-indulgent-- often determines what you think of the pediatrician who reared them through the pages of his books."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/spock.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/spock.html)
I will have to disagree with you Dan: Having lived thru these years myself. Did you? His book became popular in the 60's with some of the parents in that decade. Thank God not too much. I watched us switch over from the norm of raising your child like your parents did to Dr. Spock and Hippies. There was a definite split there. You will see some of these kids born in 70's and 80's now parents themselves. I myself did not pledge to his way but some of my friends did. I guess I really should stress that it was the mid 60's up. Call me whatever but I lived thru it myself and know what was going on.
He sure had no influence on my parents and it was the next generation up from me who are the ones the influence was the most noticed in. As far as I know no one paid any attention to him until the late 50's and early 60's.
Quote from: me on March 22, 2009, 06:42:03 PM
He sure had no influence on my parents and it was the next generation up from me who are the ones the influence was the most noticed in. As far as I know no one paid any attention to him until the late 50's and early 60's.
Rather convenient for both of you to simply dismiss the facts and I doubt you ever discussed what method of child rearing your parents gave you. I lived through all of it and know for a fact that spock is a boomer phenom. So, you will just have to live with your peers, spocked or not. No matter what your upbringing is, your attitude that somehow the latter generations were inferior or manner less, or whatever, doesn't wash. You are just being a couple of old farts.
One of the reasons Dr. Spock became so popular in the 60's with Boomers (yeah, I'm one too) besides his high-profile opposition to the Viet Nam war and the draft, was his viewpoint that we (youth) were special; that our ideas and ideologies were fresh and vibrant, and should be given credence: in essence, that we should go to the head of the line without having to establish our credentials, or pay our dues. Maybe that didn't work out the way the doc hoped it would.
Quote from: dan foster on March 22, 2009, 11:21:36 PM
Rather convenient for both of you to simply dismiss the facts and I doubt you ever discussed what method of child rearing your parents gave you. I lived through all of it and know for a fact that spock is a boomer phenom. So, you will just have to live with your peers, spocked or not. No matter what your upbringing is, your attitude that somehow the latter generations were inferior or manner less, or whatever, doesn't wash. You are just being a couple of old farts.
Which facts? That he published a book that did not become popular until the 60's. That I lived during that time and know for a fact what happened or that you don't get it.
By the way that is Mrs. Fart to you. Hard for you to admit your wrong huh???
Its rather conveinient for you to state the facts but now show them. Did you suck them out of your thumb????
Quote from: Ma and Pa on March 23, 2009, 12:05:55 AM
One of the reasons Dr. Spock became so popular in the 60's with Boomers (yeah, I'm one too) besides his high-profile opposition to the Viet Nam war and the draft, was his viewpoint that we (youth) were special; that our ideas and ideologies were fresh and vibrant, and should be given credence: in essence, that we should go to the head of the line without having to establish our credentials, or pay our dues. Maybe that didn't work out the way the doc hoped it would.
I never agreed that spock was right or that his methodologies were anything of worth.
However, he isn't the source of the ills of the boomer generation as I don't think there are any more ills in the boomers than there are in the gen-x or millennials. Each generation has its own values, good and bad, but none are better or worse than any other. To think so is old-fartism and nothing more than limited knowledge or just plain ignorance about, well, just about everything. My mom knew of spock, but didn't approve. Her sister, my aunt, did and her kids were pathetic. Proof of spock? No. However, just because they never got spock in the trailer court, doesn't mean a whole generation of boomers wasn't exposed to it, from 1946 to 1965. The post spock 70's gave us the assholes that danced to disco in the 80's, and it doesn't get much worse than that :biggrin:
So far, these assclowns; mcnoser and me, haven't really talked about the merits of spock, only about how he ruined the generations after the boomers, failing, or refusing to admit it IS the boomers spock influenced. They are looking for that blame of the lazy, no good, next generation as any old fart will tell you is, or has gone, to hell in a handbasket, goddam kids.
And that is why we have young people now that are dependable, honorable, disciplined and respectful? Actually we do have young people like this just not the majority.
Instead we have the ME ME ME ones. Whats in it for me. I don't have to put up with that me. I will do what ever I want whenever I want me. Its too much trouble me.
Oh, and these are the same young people who elected Obama. God Help Us! JMO
So, programs designed to encourage young people to participate in giving back, teach them social/civic responsibility (because obviously the parents aren't doing it - even though they should) is a bad thing? Giving them responsibility for something other than ME ME ME certainly couldn't be useful. :rolleyes: Gawd (Allah, fill in the supreme being of your choice) help save us from the people who can't see the merits of this.
You talk out both sides of your mouth. Can't have it both ways.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 11:05:35 PM
Instead we have the ME ME ME ones. Whats in it for me. I don't have to put up with that waste my time with spelling or grammar, me. I will do what ever I want write however I want, whenever I want, me. Its too much trouble to communicate effectively, me.
Oh, and these are the same young people who elected Obama Bush. God Help Us! JMO
Fixed this for you...it absolutely exemplifies your attitude on this forum.
See there you go again EX: Using my words for your own and changing mine. You might not agree with what I say but don't try to interpret what I mean or am saying. I speak plain enough thank you. So If my opinion is wrong why are you using my words???????
I was simply pointing out that you are guilty of exactly the same thing of which you accuse others. You should look up 'fundamental attribution error' sometime.
Aren't you just the biggest black hole of need and superiority?
You two old hens should go cackle at someone else. I am not the one on here second-guessing our well educated, well informed president as though I know so much more than he does; you are.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 01:11:20 PM
You two old hens should go cackle at someone else. I am not the one on here second-guessing our well educated, well informed president as though I know so much more than he does; you are.
isn't that the point of a fourm?........to give your 2 cents and opinions of topics and issues?....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 24, 2009, 01:16:11 PM
isn't that the point of a fourm?........to give your 2 cents and opinions of topics and issues?....
Yes but they seem to think they should be able to say anything they'd like but I shouldn't...my arse!
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 01:18:42 PM
Yes but they seem to think they should be able to say anything they'd like but I shouldn't...my arse!
just to give you my thoughts, ex.........I for one, enjoy our exchanges, but it seems to be your desire to demean others with opposing views, simply because you feel they/we may be not as informed as you believe that you are.
Although, you can be very comical and humorous at times with your wit, it is not always taken that way, nor is it always appreciated.
but then again, THIS is a forum, and we all should be able to express ourselves in any manner that we choose....I for one, ususally quit exchanging with those who I find irritating or to those where it no longer make any difference what you have to say, there will ALWAYS be an argument.
Yeah, well I am offended by the disrespect they show to the current POTUS so I guess we're even.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Yeah, well I am offended by the disrespect they show to the current POTUS so I guess we're even.
well was in not you that was claiming...'fundamental attribution error'?
was it not
your behavioral motives that chose to undermind and display disrespect of the former POTUS?
and yet you seem to have split-attention when it comes your view via those who oppose yours..
just an observation... ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 24, 2009, 01:50:57 PM
well was in not you that was claiming...'fundamental attribution error'?
You should avoid terms you don't understand. :razz:
Quotewas it not your behavioral motives that chose to undermind and display disrespect of the former POTUS?
The former president deserved it; he was an abject failure. This one hasn't even had a chance.
Quote...and yet you seem to have split-attention when it comes your view via those who oppose yours.
I simply don't give much credence to an opinion offered with no perspective. Would you, for example, value an opinion from Paris Hilton on what it's like to grow up poor?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
You should avoid terms you don't understand. :razz:
I understand it enough to clearly see, based upon your demeanor on here, that you
presume that you know other posters on here and their motives, to succumb to your very own hypothisis, and in many case are in err, by fundamental attribution.....put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.... ;D ;) :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
The former president deserved it; he was an abject failure. This one hasn't even had a chance.
again you are attributing a basic fundamental error, in assuming that you knew better than, those who are WAY more capable of making the extremely difficult decisions and concluding that he was an abject failure...
do you see a patteren here?... :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
I simply don't give much credence to an opinion offered with no perspective. Would you, for example, value an opinion from Paris Hilton on what it's like to grow up poor?
the WHY do you hang around, forums like this for?.....you seem to enjoy it quite a bit.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 24, 2009, 03:42:32 PM
I understand it enough to clearly see, based upon your demeanor on here, that you presume that you know other posters on here and their motives, to succumb to your very own hypothisis, and in many case are in err, by fundamental attribution.....put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.... ;D ;) :razz:
* hypothesis :razz:
Quoteagain you are attributing a basic fundamental error, in assuming that you knew better than, those who are WAY more capable of making the extremely difficult decisions and concluding that he was an abject failure...
Nope. I know lots of people who are smarter and better educated than I am and none of them is president. Bush is nowhere close. As far as the decisions he made are concerned, we have the benefit of hindsight. If I disagreed with something he was doing, it was because I anticipated the outcome of those decisions and seldom was I wrong. You don't have the same vantage point as it relates to Obama's decisions.
Quote...the WHY do you hang around, forums like this for?.....you seem to enjoy it quite a bit.
Because a man can only do so many crosswords in a day. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
. . . Because a man can only do so many crosswords in a day. :biggrin:
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
* hypothesis :razz:
I officially corrected it before your post...( :rant:..I got to proof read before I hit "post"..)
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Nope. I know lots of people who are smarter and better educated than I am and none of them is president. Bush is nowhere close. As far as the decisions he made are concerned, we have the benefit of hindsight. If I disagreed with something he was doing, it was because I anticipated the outcome of those decisions and seldom was I wrong. You don't have the same vantage point as it relates to Obama's decisions.
again....you may want to look up.....'fundamental attribution error'...it applies in those last couple of sentences....I am clearing out a lot of gray matter today.. :spooked: :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Because a man can only do so many crosswords in a day. :biggrin:
maybe the funniest quote of the day... ;D
Ex: Didja ever work any "Crosstic" puzzles? Regular crosswords are my bread & butter, but when I feel in need of a little humility, I drag out my Crosstic book and take myself down a peg or two! :smile:
:pop:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
If I disagreed with something he was doing, it was because I anticipated the outcome of those decisions and seldom was I wrong. You don't have the same vantage point as it relates to Obama's decisions.
well, we will see, but I anticipate inflation being a real problem in the coming weeks, based upon Obama's decisions...
Somebody clue me in here.... who the hell is this Dr. Spock you all speak of ? :confused: The only Spock I know of is the one on Star Trek. I don't live by a book. I don't have a 'code' I live by either. I live my life the best way I know how. This man must be of great importance, to have everybody up in arms over his 'teachings'. I guess I'm just blissfully happy in the Land of Confusion. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 24, 2009, 04:32:56 PM
well, we will see, but I anticipate inflation being a real problem in the coming weeks, based upon Obama's decisions...
Hey HH !!!! :hug:
DEX!!!... :hug: :salute:
Quote from: Dexter Morgan on March 24, 2009, 04:44:16 PM
Somebody clue me in here.... who the hell is this Dr. Spock you all speak of ? :confused: The only Spock I know of is the one on Star Trek. I don't live by a book. I don't have a 'code' I live by either. I live my life the best way I know how. This man must be of great importance, to have everybody up in arms over his 'teachings'. I guess I'm just blissfully happy in the Land of Confusion. :biggrin:
Dr. Benjamin Spock had a book about child rearing. http://www.drspock.com/about/drbenjaminspock/0,1781,,00.html Some of his ideas were good but, as usual, certain groups took things to the extreme and things went downhill from there.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 11:05:35 PM
And that is why we have young people now that are dependable, honorable, disciplined and respectful? Actually we do have young people like this just not the majority.
Instead we have the ME ME ME ones. Whats in it for me. I don't have to put up with that me. I will do what ever I want whenever I want me. Its too much trouble me.
Oh, and these are the same young people who elected Obama. God Help Us! JMO
Interesting. The most civic minded generation in a while is the worst because they elected Obama? I, for one, am certainly glad the smart people won this last election. We had enough of dumbasses running the show and mclame/failin would have topped bush in stupidity (if that is at all possible).
You are both an old fart and probably long for the days when "those" folks knew their place. Wow, a two-fer.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 24, 2009, 08:11:44 AM
Fixed this for you...it absolutely exemplifies your attitude on this forum.
:biggrin: :biggrin:
Love your tagline, there hank.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
I think I have asked you this before, but which god is it you cherish as the American God? I live in Central Florida, the lightning capital of the US. My god would be Thor. What's yours?
Quote from: dan foster on March 24, 2009, 10:20:24 PM
Love your tagline, there hank.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
I think I have asked you this before, but which god is it you cherish as the American God? I live in Central Florida, the lightning capital of the US. My god would be Thor. What's yours?
Ya know, my grandson is an atheist and he isn't near as cynical or nasty natured as you are. He also don't go around putting people down who don't believe like he does.
Quote from: dan foster on March 24, 2009, 10:11:22 PM
Interesting. The most civic minded generation in a while is the worst because they elected Obama? I, for one, am certainly glad the smart people won this last election. We had enough of dumbasses running the show and mclame/failin would have topped bush in stupidity (if that is at all possible).
You are both an old fart and probably long for the days when "those" folks knew their place. Wow, a two-fer.
Hit a Nerve did I? I love the way you twist and turn peoples words to your satisfaction. Are you sure your not a Democratic politician? You Crack Me Up :biggrin: ;D :smile:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 24, 2009, 11:25:45 PM
Hit a Nerve did I? I love the way you twist and turn peoples words to your satisfaction. Are you sure your not a Democratic politician? You Crack Me Up :biggrin: ;D :smile:
Nope. I didn't twist any words, either. Please back up your claim, or is that all you have to offer; misdirection from your ignorance? You learned well from bush, my son, very well indeed.
The same way you make accusations against Bush and others without any actual facts either?????????? I don't call people ignorant and uneducated because they don't agree with me. How juvenile can YOU be
You don't even realize that I am a female, which I have made known. Real observant there!!!!!!!!
Quote from: dan foster on March 24, 2009, 10:20:24 PM
Love your tagline, there hank.
"If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
I think I have asked you this before, but which god is it you cherish as the American God? I live in Central Florida, the lightning capital of the US. My god would be Thor. What's yours?
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....jsut as written in the Bible.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 25, 2009, 10:04:31 PM
The same way you make accusations against Bush and others without any actual facts either?????????? I don't call people ignorant and uneducated because they don't agree with me. How juvenile can YOU be
I would submit that anyone who, given the benefit of hindsight, thinks Bush did a good job is absolutely ignorant and uneducated.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 26, 2009, 08:46:59 AM
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....jsut as written in the Bible.
The god that smiled on this guy. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7177113&page=1)
Quote from: Exterminator on March 26, 2009, 08:49:46 AM
The god that smiled on this guy. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7177113&page=1)
Yep!...THAT God....I believe, God knows his heart....I struggle with forgiveness to people like this, but I'm not God.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 26, 2009, 09:12:21 AM
God knows his heart...
So your god thinks this guy who kidnapped and murdered a kid, broke out of prison and kidnapped another couple and then shanked someone in prison has a good heart? Furthermore, simply because he has accepted geebuz as his personal savior, all of theses atrocities are washed away but an honestly good person who has lived a good, honest life but is an agnostic has to spend an eternity in hell? I'm sorry but this is patently ridiculous.
You really don't get it Ex: It doesn't matter what we think, but what GOD thinks. He is the judge and jury. As a Christian we try not to get into sematics about this. If you really want to know, it is in his word(Bible), or ask a priest or pastor to help you. I can tell you what I believe all day long, but I do not presume to speak for God. He has an open line. Make the call.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 26, 2009, 09:39:23 AM
So your god thinks this guy who kidnapped and murdered a kid, broke out of prison and kidnapped another couple and then shanked someone in prison has a good heart? Furthermore, simply because he has accepted geebuz as his personal savior, all of theses atrocities are washed away but an honestly good person who has lived a good, honest life but is an agnostic has to spend an eternity in hell? I'm sorry but this is patently ridiculous.
It may very well be ridiculous....I beleive that God has layed out a pretty simple plan. He is not asking much out of us...just because WE think His rules may be a little harsh, does not mean they cannot happen.
For me, I think God WILL judge everyone, and knows that WE ALL fall short of His glory...we ALL have the same chances and same choices to make.........I also believe, that He WILL give every one the opportunity to believe or to deny.....His desire is for ALL of us to spend eternity with Him.....I have NO clue, nor will I ever claim I know WHO IS and WHO IS NOT going to move on to paradise with our Lord...Only HE will know and decide.
THAT is MY rock solid belief.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:00:46 AM
He has an open line. Make the call.
The line is busy. :rolleyes:
He has caller ID
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:00:46 AM
. . . If you really want to know, it is in his word(Bible), or ask a priest or pastor to help you. I can tell you what I believe all day long, but I do not presume to speak for God. He has an open line. Make the call.
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13389.0 (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=13389.0)
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:11:33 AM
He has caller ID
Why would he need caller ID if he's omniscient? Turns out he was busy with someone praying that her daughter would make the cheerleading squad. That sort of thing apparently takes precedence over preventing a child from being molested and murdered.
To Quote the Eagles:
"And we pray to our Lord, who we know is American.
He reigns from on high, and speaks to us through middlemen.
And he shepherds his flock, we sing out and we praise his name.
He supports us in war, he presides over football games.
And the right will prevail, all our troubles shall be resolved.
We have faith above all, unless there's money or sex involved!"
Frail Grasp on the Big Picture
You keep on rubbing that you're gonna' get a blister. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 26, 2009, 10:32:16 AM
Why would he need caller ID if he's omniscient? Turns out he was busy with someone praying that her daughter would make the cheerleading squad. That sort of thing apparently takes precedence over preventing a child from being molested and murdered.
I was being flippant with you. I meant thru prayer you can reach him anytime. I am truly sorry for what ever happened that has made you so angry and disappointed with God and Christians. I hope you allow God to help you through it.
Quote from: me on March 24, 2009, 05:18:53 PM
Dr. Benjamin Spock had a book about child rearing. http://www.drspock.com/about/drbenjaminspock/0,1781,,00.html Some of his ideas were good but, as usual, certain groups took things to the extreme and things went downhill from there.
I had no clue. :-[
Quote from: me on March 24, 2009, 10:25:03 PM
Ya know, my grandson is an atheist and he isn't near as cynical or nasty natured as you are. He also don't go around putting people down who don't believe like he does.
:wink:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:26:29 PM
I was being flippant with you. I meant thru prayer you can reach him anytime. I am truly sorry for what ever happened that has made you so angry and disappointed with God and Christians. I hope you allow God to help you through it.
I am neither angry nor disappointed but I am realistic and if there is a god, he certainly has more important things to do than listen and respond to the ramblings of insignificants like you or me.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 27, 2009, 08:27:15 AM
I am neither angry nor disappointed but I am realistic and if there is a god, he certainly has more important things to do than listen and respond to the ramblings of insignificants like you or me.
Okay, I know better, but I'm jumping in on this one....but, if we have a God, who can create the UNIVERSE (which I earnestly believe)....I'm thinking He can listen to a few gripes by the people He created...if He wants to....I do not think we realize HOW big God is....He is the creator of ALL things that we can comprehend...and He WANTS to have a relationship with us.....at least that is MY belief.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 27, 2009, 08:40:57 AM
...if He wants to...
And there's the rub of it. Why would he want to?
QuoteI do not think we realize HOW big God is....He is the creator of ALL things that we can comprehend...and He WANTS to have a relationship with us...
Assuming that if such a great being existed, people could even begin to comprehend his/her/its motivations and or wants is, in my opinion, the epitome of presumptuousness.
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
George Carlin
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 27, 2009, 11:14:55 AM
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
George Carlin
R.I.P. George. The world is missing your wisdom already!
Religion is orgaized christianity: Believing in God is a free choice. I have no trouble with people who choose not to believe in him. My problem is with people who mock, put down and critisize my choice to worship him. I think that should be a two way street.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 05:38:53 PM
Religion is orgaized christianity: Believing in God is a free choice. I have no trouble with people who choose not to believe in him. My problem is with people who mock, put down and critisize my choice to worship him. I think that should be a two way street.
The zealots amongst you outnumber you!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 26, 2009, 08:46:59 AM
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....jsut as written in the Bible.
And Mohammed. Don't forget Mohmammed.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:00:46 AM
You really don't get it Ex: It doesn't matter what we think, but what GOD thinks. He is the judge and jury. As a Christian we try not to get into sematics about this. If you really want to know, it is in his word(Bible), or ask a priest or pastor to help you. I can tell you what I believe all day long, but I do not presume to speak for God. He has an open line. Make the call.
Well, sir. I have been a christian, but unlike my contemporaries of the time, I read the bible and THAT is the reason I am an atheist. Impossible shit. But, just for grins as you are a newbie, here is some of "his" word from the bible. Tell me what it means to you;
Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 26, 2009, 10:05:14 AM
It may very well be ridiculous....I beleive that God has layed out a pretty simple plan. He is not asking much out of us...just because WE think His rules may be a little harsh, does not mean they cannot happen.
For me, I think God WILL judge everyone, and knows that WE ALL fall short of His glory...we ALL have the same chances and same choices to make.........I also believe, that He WILL give every one the opportunity to believe or to deny.....His desire is for ALL of us to spend eternity with Him.....I have NO clue, nor will I ever claim I know WHO IS and WHO IS NOT going to move on to paradise with our Lord...Only HE will know and decide.
THAT is MY rock solid belief.
When you can tell us WHY god needs you to spend eternity with him, then you might have some basis for WANTING to spend eternity with him. Is eternity what the father wants for his son, jesus, and you are just a pet in his petting zoo? Does he need you to ride that white horse back to earth to kill me for not believing? Just give us something to go on.
Revelation 19:14
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 06:32:32 PM
And Mohammed. Don't forget Mohmammed.
Mohmammed is not in the king james Bible. I think you are talking about the Koran or some other book
Quote from: Exterminator on March 26, 2009, 10:06:06 AM
The line is busy. :rolleyes:
They tried to reverse the charges, on my call...
(http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Pat-Robertson.jpg)
Quote from: Palehorse on March 27, 2009, 05:50:35 PM
The zealots amongst you outnumber you!
Actually they don't, they are just more troublesome, outspoken and a burr under my saddle.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 26, 2009, 10:26:29 PM
I was being flippant with you. I meant thru prayer you can reach him anytime. I am truly sorry for what ever happened that has made you so angry and disappointed with God and Christians. I hope you allow God to help you through it.
Ah crap. Here we go again; has to be something wrong or something terrible to have happened to the poor, angry atheist. If you weren't so easily amused by your own, self delusion, then you would find that real life is much better than the imaginary one christians live in. Of course, most "christians" are faking it as they can't possibly believe most what they have convinced themselves and others that they believe.
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 06:36:58 PM
Well, sir. I have been a christian, but unlike my contemporaries of the time, I read the bible and THAT is the reason I am an atheist. Impossible shit. But, just for grins as you are a newbie, here is some of "his" word from the bible. Tell me what it means to you;
Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
It does not matter what I think it means. What did God mean by it? That is the question, You can take one verse out of any chapter and make it what you want to. You have to read the whold contex to get the true meaning.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 05:38:53 PM
Religion is orgaized christianity: Believing in God is a free choice. I have no trouble with people who choose not to believe in him. My problem is with people who mock, put down and critisize my choice to worship him. I think that should be a two way street.
And I believe in your right to worship any way you want (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, or is at least among consenting adults), but don't expect the rest of us to just roll over and say "sure, you are right" or "yeah, that craps worth believing in".
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 06:41:42 PM
Mohmammed is not in the king james Bible. I think you are talking about the Koran or some other book
I think Dan means that the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is also the god of Mohammed. :wink:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 06:41:42 PM
Mohmammed is not in the king james Bible. I think you are talking about the Koran or some other book
Nope. The koran, bible and torah all worship the single god of abraham. In other words, those goofy muslims are just as crazy as you are, and you them. You all believe the same stuff, they just think jesus was another prophet (like Jefferson thought) and you think moosehameggs is just a man (even if he rode a horse to heaven as some muslims believe). Your guy just has the ability to fly, without the horse :biggrin:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 06:47:00 PM
It does not matter what I think it means. What did God mean by it? That is the question, You can take one verse out of any chapter and make it what you want to. You have to read the whold contex to get the true meaning.
Right. Good copout. "we can't understand his infinite wisdom", blah, blah, blah. How about a little more context, then. Try and study this stuff, really hard. It is easy to read and understand. Please try this, one more time, in context. I don't really want to paste the whole goddamn chapter, so just give this a shot...if you think you can justify the needs of the "creator of the universe".
Numbers 3
7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
19And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
20And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.
21And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 06:51:59 PM
Nope. The koran, bible and torah all worship the single god of abraham. In other words, those goofy muslims are just as crazy as you are, and you them. You all believe the same stuff, they just think jesus was another prophet (like Jefferson thought) and you think moosehameggs is just a man (even if he rode a horse to heaven as some muslims believe). Your guy just has the ability to fly, without the horse :biggrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an--Please check out this link.
Now, admit it: Putting the whole chapter in does give it a better understanding. What do you think it means??put your mouth where your attitude is. Inform me.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 07:03:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an--Please check out this link.
What are you trying to show with this link? It's broken when I click on it. :confused:
BTW, if you're going to try and dispute that the Muslims and Christians worship the same god, you're going to be out of luck because that is certainly a fact.
It worked for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
Muhammad ibn 'Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[2] IPA: [mʊħɑmmæd̪]; pronunciation (help·info); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic
Quote from: me on March 27, 2009, 07:16:27 PM
It worked for me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
I just typed in Koran and it redirected there. ;D
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
Muhammad ibn 'Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[2] IPA: [mʊħɑmmæd̪]; pronunciation (help·info); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic
But again, how does that dispute what Dan said?
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 06:32:32 PM
And Mohammed. Don't forget Mohmammed.
He said just as written in the bible, I was just pointing out it is in the Koran.
Quote from: Locutus on March 27, 2009, 07:10:03 PM
What are you trying to show with this link? It's broken when I click on it. :confused:
BTW, if you're going to try and dispute that the Muslims and Christians worship the same god, you're going to be out of luck because that is certainly a fact.
I never said the above. I was just pointing Dan to the right book for reference.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 07:23:32 PM
He said just as written in the bible, I was just pointing out it is in the Koran.
Oh, I took Dan's remarks as being in reply to the "god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" part of HH's comments.
Yes from the Bible. I really can't speak much for the Koran but I did know that Mohammed was a prophet in Islam.
Ditto what Sandy said! :biggrin: :yes:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 20, 2009, 07:15:52 AM
Only you and the Whack Nut Daily could twist volunteerism, community service and teaching youth social/civic responsibility into a bad thing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 07:07:13 PM
Now, admit it: Putting the whole chapter in does give it a better understanding. What do you think it means??put your mouth where your attitude is. Inform me.
The creator of the universe likes to watch old men rape little girls, for sport.
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 10:23:23 PM
The creator of the universe likes to watch old men rape little girls, for sport.
That is a twisted view of it. Had you thought that what God meant was to keep the young girls to marry, when they were old enough, into the tribe and bring in new blood(genes) That way they keep the bloodline going. From a study I did I learned that the Jews would take in the children and raise them as their own. I for one moment do not think that God had that on his mind at all.
Quote from: dan foster on March 27, 2009, 10:23:23 PM
The creator of the universe likes to watch old men rape little girls, for sport.
OMG!!! Dan... that is an extremely offensive thing to say!!! What goes on in that sick head of yours? :spooked: I don't care if you believe in God or you don't, you don't joke about children being molested. My God Dan... I'm really shocked by this. :spooked:
Dan, you claim you were a christian and now aren't, that you read the bible. The Bible has to be studied and prayed over and talked over with other christians. There is a lot in it and it takes a long time to get it. I believe myself that it is really simple. God loves us, sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, If we accept this love and his sons sacrifice we will one day be in heaven with them. I don't have time to tell my testimony here but we all have one. It is not an easy life to be a christian but the main thing I get is that he wants us to treat each other with respect, tolerance and love. To honor and respect him and be thankful for all he gives us. He does not want war, povetry, suffering or illness for us. If you really look at it, all those things are the product of our own doing. Our sinful and willful part. We can stop all these thinkgs ourselves but don't. Why? I will pray for you and hope you find the peace and love of the one true God. He loves you even if you don't love him, unconditionally. WOW
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 10:56:51 PM
That is a twisted view of it. Had you thought that what God meant was to keep the young girls to marry, when they were old enough, into the tribe and bring in new blood(genes) That way they keep the bloodline going. From a study I did I learned that the Jews would take in the children and raise them as their own. I for one moment do not think that God had that on his mind at all.
So, that was god's plan; kill the men, married women, little boys, but keep the virgin girls alive so you can keep them to marry? And that is justified, how? That is no less disgusting than the actual text (keep them for yourselves).
Quote from: Dexter Morgan on March 27, 2009, 10:59:44 PM
OMG!!! Dan... that is an extremely offensive thing to say!!! What goes on in that sick head of yours? :spooked: I don't care if you believe in God or you don't, you don't joke about children being molested. My God Dan... I'm really shocked by this. :spooked:
Yes, the bible is full of vile, hateful stuff. You would know if you read it.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 07:23:32 PM
He said just as written in the bible, I was just pointing out it is in the Koran.
No, I didn't say as written in the bible. As is known, you (if you are christian) worship the same god as the jews and the muslims. That is all I said. Do you still dispute that?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 27, 2009, 11:47:15 PM
Dan, you claim you were a christian and now aren't, that you read the bible. The Bible has to be studied and prayed over and talked over with other christians. There is a lot in it and it takes a long time to get it. I believe myself that it is really simple. God loves us, sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, If we accept this love and his sons sacrifice we will one day be in heaven with them. I don't have time to tell my testimony here but we all have one. It is not an easy life to be a christian but the main thing I get is that he wants us to treat each other with respect, tolerance and love. To honor and respect him and be thankful for all he gives us. He does not want war, povetry, suffering or illness for us. If you really look at it, all those things are the product of our own doing. Our sinful and willful part. We can stop all these thinkgs ourselves but don't. Why? I will pray for you and hope you find the peace and love of the one true God. He loves you even if you don't love him, unconditionally. WOW
Yeah, right. OK, let's try one more you won't answer, either; why did the creator of the universe need to nail a guy to a cross so that you could believe and go to eternity, with him? That doesn't sound just bizarre to you?
I believe it was the roman soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross??? As to the fact that I worship the same god as the Muslins, I don't really know who they are worshiping so I can't tell you. I will leave that up to God.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 28, 2009, 03:17:57 PM
I believe it was the roman soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross??? As to the fact that I worship the same god as the Muslins, I don't really know who they are worshiping so I can't tell you. I will leave that up to God.
Not much of an answer, but they were certainly doing god's will. Do you think they were punished for that? After all, if jesus hadn't died, you wouldn't have everlasting life. So, you should thank the roman soldiers, right?
However, you didn't answer the question; why did they nail "him" up?
I have no animosity against the Roman soldiers, yes they were doing their job. I was pointing out that Humans killed Jesus.
The reason I won't say much about the muslim faith is that I really don't know much about it. I don't make opinions on religions I don't know. I also have no animosity against them either.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 28, 2009, 07:37:07 PM
I have no animosity against the Roman soldiers, yes they were doing their job. I was pointing out that Humans killed Jesus.
The reason I won't say much about the muslim faith is that I really don't know much about it. I don't make opinions on religions I don't know. I also have no animosity against them either.
Fair enough. This discussion all sprang from hank's claim that the god of abraham is the god of America. I just pointed out to him that he left mohammed off his list of prophets under that god. There ISN'T a god of America. This is a secular state and it is silly to claim this god or that god is our foundation. Stupid, anti-American and un-Constitutional just for starters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEFkYtANVg
I hope you will listen to this, it pretty much says what I have been trying too all along. That Paul Harvey is sure good for me, he will be missed.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 29, 2009, 02:04:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEFkYtANVg
I hope you will listen to this, it pretty much says what I have been trying too all along. That Paul Harvey is sure good for me, he will be missed.
Sorry, but religion is religion, especially if there is a deity involved. You can B'hai faith it and reject all religions as man-made, but the belief in a deity just takes you back to square one. Paul Harvey's pushing god isn't any different than Joel Osteen's. Again, just "which" god is Harvey pushing?
I like the MSNBC Worst Persons segment in the same Youtube group. It is more meaningful and speaks volumes about Harvey and his ilk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIyaRUHtM5Q&feature=related
Quote from: dan foster on March 29, 2009, 01:29:50 PM
Fair enough. This discussion all sprang from hank's claim that the god of abraham is the god of America. I just pointed out to him that he left mohammed off his list of prophets under that god. There ISN'T a god of America. This is a secular state and it is silly to claim this god or that god is our foundation. Stupid, anti-American and un-Constitutional just for starters.
Dan, we have been down this road before, I only stated that it was MY belief...and It is and always will be, based upon History and it's writtings, that our forefathers believed in God, the God of Abraham....and the vast majority of them believed inthe Holy Bible...and it WAS the moral compass that they used to design our constitution....I never, ever stated that we ARE a Christian Nation nor does our constitution declare that....I AM stating, my opinion, that our forefathers never dreamed of a day that God would be as disrespected as He is today, and that would propbably not set well with them....just MY opinion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 10:19:23 AM
...based upon History and it's writtings, that our forefathers believed in God, the God of Abraham....and the vast majority of them believed inthe Holy Bible...
If that's true, then I'm sure you can provide us with a list of those in that vast majority. Please do so.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 11:09:38 AM
If that's true, then I'm sure you can provide us with a list of those in that vast majority. Please do so.
Okay, here.. (http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage17.html)
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition?
"The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.
James McHenry was a member of the Continental Congress, a state legislator, a soldier, and a signer of the Constitution...as well as the president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. McHenry stated:
Neither...let it be overlooked, that public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also signed the Constitution, and served as a delegate to the national Constitutional Convention and an author of the Constitution of South Caroline. Pinckney was a statesman, soldier, planter, a brigadier general and a candidate for President and Vice-President. Like the rest of the signers of the Constitution, he too recognized the Sovereignty of God:
"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Saviour Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land."
Very Well Put Henry: :biggrin: ;D :yes:
Despite your constant need to attempt to validate your religious beliefs by trying to illustrate how many others may believe the same thing, affiliation with a specific religion does not imply belief in either a god or the bible. I, for example, was raised as a Catholic.
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
The Treaty of Tripoli usually refers to the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, otherwise known in English as the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. The treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797, finally receiving ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.
Soon after the formation of the United States, privateering in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean from the nations of the Barbary Coast prompted the U.S. to form a series of so-called "peace treaties", collectively known as the Barbary Treaties. Individual treaties were negotiated with Morocco (1786), Algeria (1795), Tripoli (1797) and Tunis (1797), all of them more than once.
The United States consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis was Joel Barlow, who dealt with the text of various treaties (including the Treaty of Tripoli) and supported U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Barbary Coast. Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States, David Humphreys, was given the right to establish a treaty with Tripoli and assigned Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson to broker it. It was Joel Barlow who certified the signatures on the Arabic original and the English copy provided to him. Later, Captain Richard O'Brien established the original transport of the negotiated goods along with the Treaty, but it was the American Consul James Leander Cathcart who delivered the final requirements of payment for the treaty. The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to pay the Pasha's demands for increased payments. The Treaty was renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War.
The first treaty is cited as historical evidence in the contemporary controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the first treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.
Uh, Treaty, Amendment, Uh whats the difference Ex???? We were telling them we come in peace to trade not over take you. You are really over reaching here Ex
It says what it says. If Christianity was such an influential force in the formation of our Constitution, why is there no mention of god, geebuz or the bible anywhere in that document?
It must really suck to have such shallow beliefs that you constantly need to seek validation.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 11:30:11 AM
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.
Justice David Brewer wrote this
in dicta, meaning it is a personal opinion only and not a legal pronouncement and felt obliged to clarify his position, "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Because when we are dealing with other countries or territories we don't push our God on them. America is the one who is Under God and is a God fearing nation. Like I said before they were more worried that all religions in America had the freedom to worship without persecution. I believe that all religions have the right to worship their god or gods with out reprisal too. Also the right to not worship a god is just as reverent and should be respected. So we are a god fearing nation we just might worship him in different ways.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 12:13:40 PM
Because when we are dealing with other countries or territories we don't push our God on them. America is the one who is Under God and is a God fearing nation. Like I said before they were more worried that all religions in America had the freedom to worship without persecution. I believe that all religions have the right to worship their god or gods with out reprisal too. Also the right to not worship a god is just as reverent and should be respected. So we are a god fearing nation we just might worship him in different ways.
Total bullshit...
you may be a god fearing person but that doesn't give you the right to ascribe your peculiar superstitious beliefs to the entire country and no matter how loudly you yell it or how much you stomp your feet, that will never change.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 11:51:07 AM
Despite your constant need to attempt to validate your religious beliefs by trying to illustrate how many others may believe the same thing, affiliation with a specific religion does not imply belief in either a god or the bible. I, for example, was raised as a Catholic.
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Funny how, unbeliever grasp onto the Treaty of Tripoli as imperical evidence, they over look the THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html) of 1783..where is open's in plain english....
In the name of the most holy and undivided TrinityTHIS treat WAS negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others and is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States...and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording...which there IS a dispute on the content of the treaty of tripoli....
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 12:19:26 PM
Total bullshit...you may be a god fearing person but that doesn't give you the right to ascribe your peculiar superstitious beliefs to the entire country and no matter how loudly you yell it or how much you stomp your feet, that will never change.
No, we have to put up with people like you that fear christians and their beliefs so much that you have subverted our right to prayer in school and public places. You mock and put us down at every given chance. You are so obsessed with us that you are trying to remove all reference to God. Well you can take it all away, even our bibles and close our churchs, but you will never take away our beliefs and we will worship anyway. When America quits being a nation under God. God help us all!
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 12:13:40 PM
Because when we are dealing with other countries or territories we don't push our God on them. America is the one who is Under God and is a God fearing nation. Like I said before they were more worried that all religions in America had the freedom to worship without persecution. I believe that all religions have the right to worship their god or gods with out reprisal too. Also the right to not worship a god is just as reverent and should be respected. So we are a god fearing nation we just might worship him in different ways.
There is no "him" to worship, especially in the US gov't. The mistakes in money and the children's pledge of allegiance do not over rule the intentions of our founders to be a secular state. We are, and no amount of historical revisionist attempts to change that will work. Our founders knew better. Too bad so many are so pro-god, but anti-American, these days.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
No, we have to put up with people like you that fear christians and their beliefs so much that you have subverted our right to prayer in school and public places. You mock and put us down at every given chance. You are so obsessed with us that you are trying to remove all reference to God. Well you can take it all away, even our bibles and close our churchs, but you will never take away our beliefs and we will worship anyway. When America quits being a nation under God. God help us all!
And we have put up with people like you trying to take over the gov't, use the gov't to push your religion and want it taught in public schools. No one is trying to stop you from worshiping or close your churches. You just can't have my tax dollars for your religion or use the gov't for it. Sorry.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
Funny how, unbeliever grasp onto the Treaty of Tripoli as imperical evidence, they over look the THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html) of 1783..where is open's in plain english....In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity
THIS treat WAS negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others and is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States...and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording...which there IS a dispute on the content of the treaty of tripoli....
Like I said, it must really suck for the so-called 'believers' that their 'faith' is on such shaky ground that if they can't convince themselves our entire country was founded based on their superstitions, the house of cards comes crashing down around them.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
No, we have to put up with people like you that fear christians and their beliefs so much that you have subverted our right to prayer in school and public places. You mock and put us down at every given chance. You are so obsessed with us that you are trying to remove all reference to God. Well you can take it all away, even our bibles and close our churchs, but you will never take away our beliefs and we will worship anyway. When America quits being a nation under God. God help us all!
You can still pray in school; you simply can't force everyone else to do so. And if by 'fear' you mean that the prospect of letting people like you dictate to me how I should lived based on your fantasies of an invisible man living in the sky, yes, it is scary. Our forefathers also recognized the danger in this which is why they worded the Constitution the way they did.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 12:42:50 PM
Like I said, it must really suck for the so-called 'believers' that their 'faith' is on such shaky ground that if they can't convince themselves our entire country was founded based on their superstitions, the house of cards comes crashing down around them.
just stating facts....
and it is the SAME superstition that our Forefathers cherished....they even cherished it enough that it WAS mentioned in ALL of our STATE constitutions....every one of them....
I honestly have respect for NOT pushing it into our National Constitution...it has to be realized before it is worth anything.....for MOST Americans it IS realized, the significance of having a realtionship with God..and the values placed upon liberty and freedom based upon His Divine presence....
Yeah because being required to worship and serve are the very hallmarks of liberty and freedom; huh? :rolleyes:
Try as you might, you can't rewrite history no matter how ignorant of it you choose to remain.
It strikes me as more than a little ironic that religion now is attempting to impose itself upon government here within the United States.
While it is somewhat true that this country came into existence based upon "freedom of religion", that "freedom" did not identify "a" religion but rather "religion" itself. If a person wanted to worship moles then they are free to do so.
But there was not a singular driver for the formation of this country, but rather many; oppression, taxation, etc. and our founding fathers being the wise men that they were, realized that eventually religion would grow to a point where "it" would strongly desire governance over "the people". This being the case they understood the importance of the separation of church and state and formulated the verbiage so as to be crystal clear on the subject, in the vernacular of the time.
Now, much as he has done with the bible, man wants to reinterpret the language to suit "his" greed for wealth and power. The church has ZERO business in government, and the government has ZERO business in the church. Period.
They are to be separate and stay separate. The second the government tells me that (insert your preferred religion here) is the required faith of the country, is the day I pack my bags and hot hoof it north to Canada. :icon_evil:
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 01:00:47 PM
Yeah because being required to worship and serve are the very hallmarks of liberty and freedom; huh? :rolleyes:
Try as you might, you can't rewrite history no matter how ignorant of it you choose to remain.
I'm in good company...no matter HOW ignorant that YOU choose to remain... ;)
Woodrow Wilson said in a, ...1911 pre-presidential campaign speech... (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html)
America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures. ...Part of the destiny of Americans lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations. That if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit.Harry Truman "the man from Independence" was an avid reader. He read the Bible. He said (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=657&st=&st1=),
The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. Members of the Supreme Court have acknowledged the significance of our Christian heritage. Some historians recognize John Marshall the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He established the authority of the Court as a strong independent third branch of government. He said in a letter to Jasper Adams on May 9, 1833
The American population is entirely Christian, (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/chief-justice-john-marshall-on.html) and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.and I can go on and on IF you like...
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:12:25 PM
They are to be separate and stay separate. The second the government tells me that (insert your preferred religion here) is the required faith of the country, is the day I pack my bags and hot hoof it north to Canada. :icon_evil:
I agree it NEVER should be required...EVER....but on the same note, it should NEVER be
denied it historical foundation...the significants that our forefathers spoke about...the importance of God and the Bible is to this country.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 01:00:47 PM
Yeah because being required to worship and serve are the very hallmarks of liberty and freedom; huh? :rolleyes:
Try as you might, you can't rewrite history no matter how ignorant of it you choose to remain.
it is NEVER ...requried....
and I have NOT rewrote any history....just showing quotes by the guys who has played key roles in the foudation of this country..........that's it
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 01:40:50 PM
I agree it NEVER should be required...EVER....but on the same note, it should NEVER be denied it historical foundation...the significants that our forefathers spoke about...the importance of God and the Bible is to this country.
I believe you are confusing individual opinions and beliefs with official ones. Freedom of religion implies the freedom to worship what you want, when you want, and however you want.
And individual's fervor as it relates to a particular faith or sect should have no bearing what so ever upon the governance of the people, but rather should stand as his/her personal endorsement of said faith or sect.
For government to endorse any religion, doctrine, or sect is exclusionary in nature and a slap in the face to those who believe in something different. NOT what this country was founded upon.
While it might be accurate to state that the
majority of religious people in this country believe in Christianity, it is not
accurate to say that all do or should. Certainly that statement would be offensive in nature to those who are of Muslim, Buddhist, or other faiths.
While it may be accurate to state that this country was founded upon the acknowledgement that there is a "God", it is not accurate to state that this given "God" is Christian.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 01:21:23 PM
I'm in good company...no matter HOW ignorant that YOU choose to remain... ;)
Woodrow Wilson said in a, ...1911 pre-presidential campaign speech... (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html) America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures. ...Part of the destiny of Americans lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations. That if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Harry Truman "the man from Independence" was an avid reader. He read the Bible. He said (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=657&st=&st1=),The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.
Members of the Supreme Court have acknowledged the significance of our Christian heritage. Some historians recognize John Marshall the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He established the authority of the Court as a strong independent third branch of government. He said in a letter to Jasper Adams on May 9, 1833
The American population is entirely Christian, (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/chief-justice-john-marshall-on.html) and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.
and I can go on and on IF you like...
You can post all the quotes you'd like from people who are as wrong as you are on the subject but that still doesn't change the reality that the only mention of religion at all in our Constitution is exclusionary. That some of the founding fathers considered themselves Christians in no way implies that it was the basis for our government. Hoover is especially ignorant of this fact since he is apparently unaware that our system of law is based on the system of common law introduced to England by the Saxons. How could the Saxons have introduced a system of common law based on Christianity when they were not Christians?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 01:40:50 PM
...the significants that our forefathers spoke about...
Many spoke directly against it.
Quote...the importance of God and the Bible is to this country.
It's of absolutely no importance to me and I am part of this country.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
I believe you are confusing individual opinions and beliefs with official ones. Freedom of religion implies the freedom to worship what you want, when you want, and however you want.
No argument here... :no:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
And individual's fervor as it relates to a particular faith or sect should have no bearing what so ever upon the governance of the people, but rather should stand as his/her personal endorsement of said faith or sect.
As long as it is within our Constitution, I agree.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
For government to endorse any religion, doctrine, or sect is exclusionary in nature and a slap in the face to those who believe in something different. NOT what this country was founded upon.
As a government body, yeah, I somewhat agree...but, it is very, very evident, the value of God and the Bible, by many of those who has served our government...especially by those who was the signers....at least it was their opinion...
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:51:58 PM
While it might be accurate to state that the majority of religious people in this country believe in Christianity, it is not accurate to say that all do or should. Certainly that statement would be offensive in nature to those who are of Muslim, Buddhist, or other faiths.
I it is offensive to those Americans who DO believe in Christ, that THEY cannot vote or fight for those principals that are taught by God and Christ...and THAT is happening today...
other than THAT...most Christians do NOT force their religion on anyone...I know there are radicals out there that spoil the cart........the vast majority are NOT that way....imo.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 01:51:58 PMWhile it may be accurate to state that this country was founded upon the acknowledgement that there is a "God", it is not accurate to state that this given "God" is Christian.
maybe true, but there IS evidence that many DID....and almost ALL of them believed in or cherished the Holy Bible....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
maybe true, but there IS evidence that many DID....and almost ALL of them believed in or cherished the Holy Bible....
Again, you are making the incorrect assumption that being affiliated with a religion means that they 'cherished the Holy Bible' and history absolutely does
not support that position no matter how hard you try to delude yourself otherwise.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
. . .
As a government body, yeah, I somewhat agree...but, it is very, very evident, the value of God and the Bible, by many of those who has served our government...especially by those who was the signers....at least it was their opinion...
The problem is that history and some individuals are confusing personal opinion and personal endorsement as governmental endorsement; clearly these are two
very different things and the danger in doing so leads to the sense of entitlement we seem to be seeing within the Christian leadership.
The intent is clear, government does not endorse any particular faith. The
personal faith of those who hold office is just that, personal, and in no way represents the views or perspectives of government.
Have current and past POTUS's utilized their position as a platform from which to exude their faith? Yes. But this doesn't make it right. However, the POTUS is a citizen just like each one of us and well within their individual right to profess their faith as an exercise of freedom of speech on a personal level.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
I it is offensive to those Americans who DO believe in Christ, that THEY cannot vote or fight for those principals that are taught by God and Christ...and THAT is happening today...
other than THAT...most Christians do NOT force their religion on anyone...I know there are radicals out there that spoil the cart........the vast majority are NOT that way....imo.
No one is trying to say that any Christian cannot vote or fight for those changes in law that would help incorporate some aspects of their faith based system into law. Rather, when the proposed laws impose upon the established individual rights of the citizens in general, or are deemed to be against the intended nature of governance, then all must accept this and move forward. It is how the system works and how it was intended to work.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 02:10:21 PM
maybe true, but there IS evidence that many DID....and almost ALL of them believed in or cherished the Holy Bible....
Again. This is personal opinion or perspective and certainly within their individual rights. What it is not is governance and law.
If an individual's right to worship woodpeckers helps him/her in the execution of their professional duties, and said worshiping does not impose itself upon others and negatively impact their ability to execute their duties, than bully for them.
If one of our leaders read Mein Kampf daily, and it inspired him or her to achieve great things in governmental leadership, would you feel the same about
this book? I think not! Because it is a personal choice and a personal experience that brought about the end result. Not everyone reads the King James version of the Holy Bible. Nor do they have to.
What gets you through the day may not quite make it for me or the next person, and still be found to be restrictive to another. Government must do what is right and what makes sense for all.
I'm confused about something, what exactly are christians doing that is trying to make anyone worship God and his son Jesus? I don't know of any legislation or laws that require this. Where have we tried to make anyone bow down or go down on their knees and worship God? Your confusion is that alot of good christian men have served our country as POTUS, senators, ambassadors etc and they haven't been bashful about their faith. I have never saw a one of them tell someone else to believe as they do. I will take a christian person anytime over a non believer because I know that they have the fundamentals down. Integrity, honesty, love of this great country and a belief in service of the USA. So how exactly are we stepping on your rights??? Is it by these discussions on forums. If you think that then don't read them. You have been the one that no matter what the topic of the thread you put down Christians, God and anything to do with this. Shame on You! You don't take someone standing up for what they believe in do you? I suggest you get a thicker skin and a more tolerable heart. JMO
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 04:00:40 PM
I'm confused about something, what exactly are christians doing that is trying to make anyone worship God and his son Jesus? I don't know of any legislation or laws that require this. Where have we tried to make anyone bow down or go down on their knees and worship God? Your confusion is that alot of good christian men have served our country as POTUS, senators, ambassadors etc and they haven't been bashful about their faith. I have never saw a one of them tell someone else to believe as they do. I will take a christian person anytime over a non believer because I know that they have the fundamentals down. Integrity, honesty, love of this great country and a belief in service of the USA. So how exactly are we stepping on your rights??? Is it by these discussions on forums. If you think that then don't read them. You have been the one that no matter what the topic of the thread you put down Christians, God and anything to do with this. Shame on You! You don't take someone standing up for what they believe in do you? I suggest you get a thicker skin and a more tolerable heart. JMO
To whom are you addressing this posting?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 04:00:40 PM
I'm confused about something, what exactly are christians doing that is trying to make anyone worship God and his son Jesus? I don't know of any legislation or laws that require this. Where have we tried to make anyone bow down or go down on their knees and worship God? Your confusion is that alot of good christian men have served our country as POTUS, senators, ambassadors etc and they haven't been bashful about their faith. I have never saw a one of them tell someone else to believe as they do. I will take a christian person anytime over a non believer because I know that they have the fundamentals down. Integrity, honesty, love of this great country and a belief in service of the USA. So how exactly are we stepping on your rights??? Is it by these discussions on forums. If you think that then don't read them. You have been the one that no matter what the topic of the thread you put down Christians, God and anything to do with this. Shame on You! You don't take someone standing up for what they believe in do you? I suggest you get a thicker skin and a more tolerable heart. JMO
Well in any case. . .
Most often it is the fact that Christians try to invoke some sort of entitlement as "the" official religion of the government/nation as lever with which to enforce their opposition toward the elimination of the IGWT statement upon our currency, public buildings, etc.
It is a patently false claim and these conversations are almost always accompanied by quotes of historic governmental leadership espousing their personal faith, as examples in support of this claim. Claims that must be rebutted to correct the false sense of entitlement being assumed by others.
As for myself, I typically bring religion up because invariably it is the root driver behind the subject at hand. In this instance it wasn't me bringing it up but others, and so I picked up the ball and ran when it was my turn.
Personally, I find your method of selection invalid in basis due to the fact it utilizes belief in a faith based upon a tool created by humankind as its foundational element, despite the absence of empirical proof to support its claims.
The method alone would support false thinking and deception based choices; and quite frankly it smacks of stereo typing.
Shame on me? Isn't that a prime example of societal pressure attempting to be utilized as a means with which to force your belief system upon me? I think so. Otherwise, I've posted nothing to be ashamed of, for I have provided my own perspectives upon the subject at hand. Just because it doesn't align with your own personal belief system does not automatically relegate it to the status of shameful.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 30, 2009, 02:37:24 PM
The problem is that history and some individuals are confusing personal opinion and personal endorsement as governmental endorsement; clearly these are two very different things and the danger in doing so leads to the sense of entitlement we seem to be seeing within the Christian leadership.
The intent is clear, government does not endorse any particular faith. The personal faith of those who hold office is just that, personal, and in no way represents the views or perspectives of government.
Have current and past POTUS's utilized their position as a platform from which to exude their faith? Yes. But this doesn't make it right. However, the POTUS is a citizen just like each one of us and well within their individual right to profess their faith as an exercise of freedom of speech on a personal level.
No one is trying to say that any Christian cannot vote or fight for those changes in law that would help incorporate some aspects of their faith based system into law. Rather, when the proposed laws impose upon the established individual rights of the citizens in general, or are deemed to be against the intended nature of governance, then all must accept this and move forward. It is how the system works and how it was intended to work.
Again. This is personal opinion or perspective and certainly within their individual rights. What it is not is governance and law.
If an individual's right to worship woodpeckers helps him/her in the execution of their professional duties, and said worshiping does not impose itself upon others and negatively impact their ability to execute their duties, than bully for them.
If one of our leaders read Mein Kampf daily, and it inspired him or her to achieve great things in governmental leadership, would you feel the same about this book? I think not! Because it is a personal choice and a personal experience that brought about the end result. Not everyone reads the King James version of the Holy Bible. Nor do they have to.
What gets you through the day may not quite make it for me or the next person, and still be found to be restrictive to another. Government must do what is right and what makes sense for all.
All I am saying is........our forefathers (the vast majority) were Godly men...period.
and that is pretty much what sets of certain people on here.......I have never intended to say we are a Christian Nation...but we ARE a Nation, founded by Christian (or bibical values at the least) values...and there IS a difference...
I agree, that we ALL have the right to worship anything and anyone....THAT is a FACT that I have NEVER, EVER disputed....we are a FREE country in that regards....
I have heard on here that IF a man/woman has a Christian motive, that he/she should NOT be involved in Politics...that religion/politics don't mix...............and I say, I has...ie our forefathers....they set our rules and guidelines, with deeply seated convictions on their Godly upbringings......THAT was simply the way of life for MOST of our early Americans.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 30, 2009, 02:22:16 PM
Again, you are making the incorrect assumption that being affiliated with a religion means that they 'cherished the Holy Bible' and history absolutely does not support that position no matter how hard you try to delude yourself otherwise.
the vast majority of them DID...period. those are facts........55 signers were members of various Christian denominations...maybe I cannot prove they ALL cherished the Bible, but there are quotes from many, that strongly insinuate this.
I was directing my post to Ex: I too am just stating my opinion on this subject. The shame on you is that Ex cannot talk about anything without bashing christians. It stands to reason that anyone would get a little tired of it. We might not agree on this subject, but I do acknowledge your right to yours. I just don't think its right that I get put down for mine because it doesn't agree with theirs.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
the vast majority of them DID...period. those are facts........55 signers were members of various Christian denominations...maybe I cannot prove they ALL cherished the Bible, but there are quotes from many, that strongly insinuate this.
There were christians in the founders midst. However, they were voted down in their request to include anything about jesus or the god of abraham. Most of the PRINCIPAL founders were deist, and you know that. Stop trying to cover that up with your hand full of non founder's quotes. I can give you many, many more that support the idea that they didn't want religion in the gov't and most rejected your deities. The fact that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a total failure speaks volumes about what you think is a sign in state constitutions. They wanted a christian state. It failed.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 12:51:34 PM
just stating facts....
and it is the SAME superstition that our Forefathers cherished....they even cherished it enough that it WAS mentioned in ALL of our STATE constitutions....every one of them....
I honestly have respect for NOT pushing it into our National Constitution...it has to be realized before it is worth anything.....for MOST Americans it IS realized, the significance of having a realtionship with God..and the values placed upon liberty and freedom based upon His Divine presence....
It is absolutely amazing that the god of slavery could in any way be held up as the god of liberty and freedom. Please provide a biblical quote that would support the idea. I am not talking about the freeing of the jews from egypt. That doesn't count. They were "his" chosen ones. No, please provide a quote that supports liberty and freedom as in America. You can't. You know why, too. The bible supports the idea of slavery, even through jesus.
God gave is free will: You want to blame all the evil and sin on God, it is man that chooses to do this. It is mans nature do wrong. Blame the real culprit, man, not God. Because of free will he does not interfer and make us be good. He could but he doesn't, think about it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
the vast majority of them DID...period. those are facts........55 signers were members of various Christian denominations...maybe I cannot prove they ALL cherished the Bible, but there are quotes from many, that strongly insinuate this.
55 signers of what? Want to hit us with some more "facts"? Any idea how many of those who were
affiliated with a Christian denomination ultimately didn't turn out to follow that religion at all? Do you know what Unitatrianism is? What a Freemason is?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 30, 2009, 11:15:22 PM
God gave is free will: You want to blame all the evil and sin on God, it is man that chooses to do this. It is mans nature do wrong. Blame the real culprit, man, not God. Because of free will he does not interfer and make us be good. He could but he doesn't, think about it.
Either he can't interfere or he won't; if it's the latter, he must not care.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 07:41:37 AM
55 signers of what? Want to hit us with some more "facts"? Any idea how many of those who were affiliated with a Christian denomination ultimately didn't turn out to follow that religion at all? Do you know what Unitatrianism is? What a Freemason is?
Okay, virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations...29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
Guys, it is very evident, that THESE guys were NOT secular men.........I'm not claiming that these guys intended for everyone to be "religious"....but, the freedom to practice religion would NEVER be jepardized in this country....and I AM claiming these guys had a BELIEF in a higher being....predominatly The God of the Holy Bible.
Why does this bother you so much?
and I'm NOT saying that they intended for all citizens to be believers....they clearly wrote it to protect ALL parties involved...for Government NOT to interfer with religions or stick their nose in it......THAT was the problem they had with the OLD country.
Congress found the Bible so important, it even printed it for the American people back in 1782.
It's also evident that Jefferson wasn't afraid to mix religion and state as you walk the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a college designed by Jefferson himself.
"Faith and works will show their worth by their weight in the scales of eternal justice before God's tribunal."
(http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Light-and-Liberty/Thomas-Jefferson/e/9780812974324) Thomas Jefferson
the evidence is enoromous...
Yes I do know what Unitatrianism is and Freemason is.....though I somewhat disagree with them...they ARE believers in God.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 08:33:34 AM
Okay, virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations...29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
That's very interesting considering that only 39 people signed the U.S. Constitution. You must be thinking of the Declaration Of Independence but, of course, 56 men signed it so your number isn't accurate for that either. So much for your 'facts'.
QuoteGuys, it is very evident, that THESE guys were NOT secular men.........I'm not claiming that these guys intended for everyone to be "religious"....but, the freedom to practice religion would NEVER be jepardized in this country....and I AM claiming these guys had a BELIEF in a higher being....predominatly The God of the Holy Bible.
I don't dispute that but it isn't what started this conversation. You said, "based upon History and it's writtings, that our forefathers believed in God, the God of Abraham....and the vast majority of them believed inthe Holy Bible...and it WAS the moral compass that they used to design our constitution....," and that is patently false. The framers of the Constitution went out of their way to leave religion out of it.
QuoteWhy does this bother you so much?
Why does it bother you so much that peoples' sense of fairness and morality is inherent and has nothing to do with belief in any god or book? Can't people just be decent human beings simply because it's in most of our nature? Furthermore, how can you give some god credit for all of the good qualities in people and not hold him responsible for the evil?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 08:54:53 AM
Yes I do know what Unitatrianism is and Freemason is.....though I somewhat disagree with them...they ARE believers in God.
They certainly aren't believers in Jesus or your Bible.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 08:33:34 AM
It's also evident that Jefferson wasn't afraid to mix religion and state as you walk the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a college designed by Jefferson himself.
"Faith and works will show their worth by their weight in the scales of eternal justice before God's tribunal."
(http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Light-and-Liberty/Thomas-Jefferson/e/9780812974324) Thomas Jefferson
the evidence is enoromous...
Uh, Thomas Jefferson was a deist; do you know what that means?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 09:10:17 AM
Uh, Thomas Jefferson was a deist; do you know what that means?
yes, and big deal...He believed in God...and THAT is my whole point....I'm not saying that ALL of these guys were devout Christians....I AM saying THEY revered God....and believed He played an important role in their decision making while designing our founding documents...
HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
This epitath was written by Jefferson himself.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 09:22:19 AM
yes, and big deal...He believed in God...and THAT is my whole point....I'm not saying that ALL of these guys were devout Christians....I AM saying THEY revered God....and believed He played an important role in their decision making while designing our founding documents...
You've backpedalled quite a bit from your earlier assertion that the bible was the basis for our founding documents but you're still wrong. Deists believe that there is a god but they do not believe that he is interested in what happens here on earth or intervenes. They certainly do not 'revere' him.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
This epitath was written by Jefferson himself.
Your point?
Ex: Have you read the Jefferson Bible?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 09:41:10 AM
Ex: Have you read the Jefferson Bible?
I have not but you understand that that book presents Jesus as a good man but not a god; don't you?
But you, yourself have not read it? I found it arrogant of any man to take the Bible and write his version of it. By omitting and adding what you think, you change the whole meaning or what God wanted to say to us. He does tell us to not add or take away from the bible. That is JMO
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 09:55:43 AM
But you, yourself have not read it? I found it arrogant of any man to take the Bible and write his version of it. By omitting and adding what you think, you change the whole meaning or what God wanted to say to us. He does tell us to not add or take away from the bible. That is JMO
Your argument against Jefferson's bible is my argument against every bible. I hate to be the one to break this to you but they were all written by arrogant men. Who are we to say that Jefferson wasn't 'divinely inspired' when he wrote his version?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 09:04:06 AM
That's very interesting considering that only 39 people signed the U.S. Constitution. You must be thinking of the Declaration Of Independence but, of course, 56 men signed it so your number isn't accurate for that either. So much for your 'facts'.
True, there was only 39 signers, but there were 55 delegates who drafted (wrote) the Constitution..... ;)
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 09:04:06 AM
I don't dispute that but it isn't what started this conversation. You said, "based upon History and it's writtings, that our forefathers believed in God, the God of Abraham....and the vast majority of them believed inthe Holy Bible...and it WAS the moral compass that they used to design our Constitution....," and that is patently false. The framers of the Constitution went out of their way to leave religion out of it.
I have supplied several quotes, that support my statement...do I REALLY have to post them again?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 09:04:06 AM
Why does it bother you so much that peoples' sense of fairness and morality is inherent and has nothing to do with belief in any god or book? Can't people just be decent human beings simply because it's in most of our nature? Furthermore, how can you give some god credit for all of the good qualities in people and not hold him responsible for the evil?
I have never stated that people cannot be moral people without believing God...but I DO believe that God and His teachings played an important role in ancestors of these nonbelievers...passed on from generation to generation...
I don't pretend to know ALL the answers by any shape or form...I have my thoughts....simply because God ..'smited' .. certain people throughout time...does NOT mean He is evil...first, you got to understand WHO it was that He smited...
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 09:04:06 AM
Deists believe that there is a god but they do not believe that he is interested in what happens here on earth or intervenes. They certainly do not 'revere' him.
but there ARE several signers THAT did revere him.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
True, there was only 39 signers, but there were 55 delegates who drafted (wrote) the Constitution..... ;)
You said signers.
QuoteI have supplied several quotes, that support my statement...do I REALLY have to post them again?
You've supplied a few quotes which, as Palehorse has so adeptly pointed out over and over again, address the religious opinion of individuals. You have provided absolutely nothing to indicate the Constitution is based on morals as presented in the Bible because it is not.
Since you brought Thomas Jefferson into the conversation, here he is on the origin of morals and virtue:
"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814Seems pretty clear that he, like me, believes that morals are inherent, not attributable to some god.
And he makes it absolutely clear that Christianity didn't have dick to do with the framing of the Constitution:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814Quotebut there ARE several signers THAT did revere him.....
And several who did not which supports the position that one's belief in god or Christianity was not relevant to the founding of the country.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 10:50:34 AM
You said signers.
No I said writer AND signers...go back an look.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 30, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
the vast majority of them DID...period. those are facts........55 signers were members of various Christian denominations...
Quote from: dan foster on March 30, 2009, 10:27:18 PM
It is absolutely amazing that the god of slavery could in any way be held up as the god of liberty and freedom. Please provide a biblical quote that would support the idea. I am not talking about the freeing of the jews from egypt. That doesn't count. They were "his" chosen ones. No, please provide a quote that supports liberty and freedom as in America. You can't. You know why, too. The bible supports the idea of slavery, even through jesus.
1 Corinthians 7:20-24 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.
22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
Galatians 5 1 Stand fast therefore in the
liberty by which Christ has made us
free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage
Is there a point or did you just feel the need to start regurgitating bible verses?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 11:32:47 AM
Is there a point or did you just feel the need to start regurgitating bible verses?
just responding to Dan's post... to provide biblical quotes that supports liberty and freedom...
so i did.. :)
Somehow I feel this thread has worn out its welcome with me.
I really don't like brown anyway. Such a dull color. :wink:
Way to go Henry. Good Point :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on March 31, 2009, 11:38:16 AM
Somehow I feel this thread has worn out its welcome with me.
I really don't like brown anyway. Such a dull color. :wink:
Hear! Hear! :kickcan: :kickcan: :kickcan: :kickcan:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 12:09:43 PM
Way to go Henry. Good Point :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Really? So those two vague passages negate the numerous endorsements of slavery in the bible? Are you for real?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 31, 2009, 12:32:04 PM
Really? So those two vague passages negate the numerous endorsements of slavery in the bible? Are you for real?
Why is that different then when you quote passages or whatever, someone third bar stool down? Hawk was answering a question and did a good job of it. You can't stand it. By the way about the Jefferson bible, I asked if you read it yourself and you said no. Sooo, you are taking someone elses opinion on it and accepting it as your own. Hmmmmmm.
Face it Ex its time to let this go and move on, you are repeating yourself and it is getting tiresome.. NEXT!!!!!!
Quote from: Gardengirl on March 19, 2009, 10:58:28 PM
www.wnd.com
House adopts plan for 'volunteer' corps
Also requires new evaluation of 'mandatory' service for all
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 19, 2009
4:58 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.
The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."
The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.
It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.
WND reported when a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.
The video of his statements is posted here:
The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."
Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, "would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:
"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."
According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."
"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.
"On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.
"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama," the commentary said.
"Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary," the commentary said.
"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. ... The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."
Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. ... There shall be a superintendent for each camp."
The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."
Another portion of the bill talks about a "service learning" plan that will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."
A forum participant noted, "I wonder what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."
Formal announcements about the plan suggested something far different, picking a provision far down in the 200 pages of legislation to highlight.
According to a Business Wire statement released by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill "would formally authorize federal support for establishing the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America as a National Day of Service and Remembrance."
That provision is tucked into the far reaches of the legislation, but Schumer discussed it as if it were the primary point.
"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said Schumer. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning – it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."
On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."
The blog noted, such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.
At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans' Corps and Opportunity Corps.
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate.
WND reported earlier on Obama's Colorado Springs campaign speech when he sought a civilian security force as big and well-funded as the military – with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars.
WND later reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
I believe that this is what the thread was about. Hey Ex start your own thread on God and whenever anyone wants to spout off about it they can go there.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 04:55:33 PM
I believe that this is what the thread was about. Hey Ex start your own thread on God and whenever anyone wants to spout off about it they can go there.
And I thought we exposed that article for the lie that it is by posting a link to the actual bill.
Oh, so that was not the original topic. I believe that there is some discussion left on this thread myself.
Quote from: Bo D on March 31, 2009, 05:26:33 PM
And I thought we exposed that article for the lie that it is by posting a link to the actual bill.
The actual bill didn't say anything about the government taking over the banks and auto industry either but they're doing it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(hr037)
It also did not give President Obama the right to go to a world currency or world financial board either.
I would say the way things are turning it would be a good idea to start listening to some of these "opinions" rather than jus poo pooing them and saying "but it don't say anything about that in the original bill"..
Since some of that cash is mine, I'll just say I sure feel a lot better with someone other than the fox watching the hen house!
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 04:55:33 PM
I believe that this is what the thread was about. Hey Ex start your own thread on God and whenever anyone wants to spout off about it they can go there.
In what world do you think
I would ever take orders from
you?
Nor do you take friendly suggestions either. Get a sense of humor ;D
Quote from: mcgonser on April 01, 2009, 09:54:46 AM
Nor do you take friendly suggestions either. Get a sense of humor ;D
I have a great sense of humor; I laugh at people like you all of the time. :biggrin:
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/Smile.jpg)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 31, 2009, 11:06:58 AM
1 Corinthians 7:20-24
20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
Galatians 5
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage
Neither of your passages support liberty and freedom as defined by our Constitution. You can't even begin to stretch that long enough to think it fits....oops, yes you can. You already do that by being a christian. Sorry, I almost forgot that we could base these conversations on logic and true understanding. There is no way to do that with those who alter reality at the drop of a hat.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 04:55:33 PM
Hey Ex start your own thread on God and whenever anyone wants to spout off about it they can go there.
Actually,
I did that once upon a time. :yes: You can click this link and read it:
God Sucks! (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=3331.0)
:biggrin:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 31, 2009, 12:09:43 PM
Way to go Henry. Good Point :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Not even close.
On Jefferson:
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787. (original capitalization of the word god is retained per original)
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816, denouncing the doctrine of the Trinity and suggesting it to be so riddled in falsehood that only an authoritarian figure could decipher its meaning and, with a firm grip on people's spiritual and mental freedoms, thus convince the people of its truthfulness
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.
But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787. (original capitalization of the word god is retained per original)
Dan: Your reality and my reality might be different in some ways. But it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to think that yours is the only one that is right. Logic is considering all sides and them coming to the most logical solution. It does not matter what anyone says or proves about God or Jesus, you will always be your usual critical and one sided with blinders self. That is your mission, so be it. I find it amusing that the ones who do not believe in God are the most hateful and defensive side. I in return am finding this constant need of yours to get attention by being this lost person a little boring. I have nothing to prove to you about what I believe. It is obvious that you are offended by this. Even though you don't give me the same right. You attack anyone who says or thinks different than you. OK
Quote from: mcgonser on April 01, 2009, 08:07:47 PM
Dan: Your reality and my reality might be different in some ways. But it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to think that yours is the only one that is right. Logic is considering all sides and them coming to the most logical solution. It does not matter what anyone says or proves about God or Jesus, you will always be your usual critical and one sided with blinders self. That is your mission, so be it. I find it amusing that the ones who do not believe in God are the most hateful and defensive side. I in return am finding this constant need of yours to get attention by being this lost person a little boring. I have nothing to prove to you about what I believe. It is obvious that you are offended by this. Even though you don't give me the same right. You attack anyone who says or thinks different than you. OK
Well, hey there chief, I don't have to agree with you to be right. And, as for "Logic is considering all sides and them coming to the most logical solution." I already did that and I think my final treatment of this subject IS the most logical solution (you don't have to agree with me on that, try taking the expert's word for it at: www.deconversion.com).
I was a christian for the first 20 years of my life, so don't tell me my arguments are one sided (unless you were just pointing out you don't have a leg to stand on and can't defend your "logic").
Now, not agreeing with you, as it is with most christians, IS offensive to you. My not believing is offensive to you. But, please point out where I was truly hateful, or disprove anything I have said. Your "you're just hateful and don't understand" defense doesn't really work very well.
Quote from: dan foster on April 01, 2009, 09:57:31 PM
Your "you're just hateful and don't understand" defense doesn't really work very well.
It is, however, the same defense being used by the Wall St. bankers who trashed the economy.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/Garfieldhuggingpookie.gif)
God Loves You Anyway!
Quote from: Exterminator on April 02, 2009, 09:29:56 AM
It is, however, the same defense being used by the Wall St. bankers who trashed the economy.
It is about time the peasants revolted :biggrin: