From: stephe_k on
David Ruether wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
> --DR
>
>


While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
"Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we
are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there
are a variety of ways He is viewed.

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Neil Harrington wrote:

>
> Exactly right. Leftist looneys and the sheep that follow them reflexively
> call anything "bigotry" that doesn't comport with their own prejudices.
>

So I guess you are a "leftist looney" for throwing around "bigotry" that
doesn't comport with YOUR own prejudices, or is this statement reserved
only for other people Neil?

Stephanie
From: stephe_k on
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message

>> Obama is trying to make the US a civilised 1st world country .
>
> <guffaw!>
>
> Only if you regard Venezuela as "a civilised 1st world country."
>
> The U.S. has been by far the most successful first-world country for the
> last century or so. Whether it can survive Obama, however, remains to be
> seen.
>


Yeah we were SOOO much better off after 8 years of GWB...


Stephanie
From: Bruce on
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:21:40 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ip7cs5hgc1cps2h6mp41c2rjls3hecati1(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:20:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
>>>human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
>>>no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
>>>present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
>>>safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
>>>and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
>>>able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
>>>as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
>>>aspect of citizen activity. I'm not so afraid of socialism as some are,
>>>since it has been proven to work well in some countries.
>
>> Which countries, and what do you mean by "socialism"?
>
>So, a-skeerd of "socialism, huh? Well, Norweegia and
>Sveedin come quickly to mind...;-)


Neither of those countries practise socialism. They are both
parliamentary democracies and neither has had a socialist party in
power since World War 2, although they have sometimes had one as a
minority partner in a coalition government.

Both countries firmly support private industry. Indeed, both
countries have very successful exporters of high tech goods that are
private companies. Both countries have thriving stock markets.
Entrepreneurship is strongly encouraged and supported.

So where is the socialism? Social democracy is not socialism, unless
of course you are a US Republican, which I don't think you are.







From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>> --DR
>
>
> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what "Their
> God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we are
> discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there are a
> variety of ways He is viewed.
>
> Stephanie

Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active in
government? The constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion
and the government's intrusion into religion. It does not prohibit people
of faith from involvement and influence in government. I suggest a reading
of some of the founding father's writings, many of which state quite the
opposite of your view that God has no place in government. George
Washington said in his farewll address "It is impossible to govern the world
without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to
political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable
supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect
that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Of course, there will be many who attempt to rewrite history and deny that
our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that won't change
the truth that it was.