Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4155)	10/31/2000 8:24:25 PM
From: Ben Wa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

I am agnostic, but still care about borders, language, & culture. Regarding abortion, both "right to life" folks and "pro choice" folks have avoided the central part of the issue - which is...hmmm..maybe we should start a new thread on this....."At what point does the soul enter the physical body?" Taking a pretty picture of a 3 week old fetus does not answer that question.

To: epicure who wrote (4155)	10/31/2000 9:56:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

I don't want my politicians pushing faith. Then why is Al Gore hanging with all of these "preachers" like Jesse Jackson and the "Reverend Al Sharpton"? Why have we seen Gore and Clinton INCESSANTLY appearing at black churches and pleading for their support? Why are Hillary and Lieberman both courting the Jewish vote? And this faith based alcolhol rehabilitation program, in case you failed to read it, receives NO FEDERAL FUNDING. Separation between church and state DOES NOT mean the elimination of religion in our nation. All you have to do is look at our currency and the "In God We Trust" that appears on every bill. But I'm with you... I don't want government "pushing" one religion over another, or providing financial support for charitable programs to one faith without supporting programs of another. But both Gore and Bush has constantly discussed their faith. And they do so because they know that, unlike yourself, many other Americans WANT AND DESIRE their leaders to be men of faith and character. But the bottom line is.. if there is a charitable program out there that is dealing with social problems and having success, they should be just a eligible for Federal support as non-religious programs. The caveat should be that becoming a member of that faith should never be a condition of receiving treatment.

To: epicure who wrote (4155)	11/1/2000 7:28:15 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

<<I don't like religious mumbo jumbo talk from candidates. I don't want to see federal dollars spent on religion. I don't even agree churches should have tax exempt status. I want no Federal aid to any religion, whatsoever. >> What he spoke about is well proven, the most effective substance abuse programs are Faith Based. The least effective $ for $ are government operated. Ever been to an A-A meeting? This too is Faith Based & very effective. I read some time ago(somewhere, but forget where) that in cases when a drunk driver was taken to an A-A hall there were far less repeat offences than when a drunk driver was taken to jail or a public funded facility allowing them to sleep it off. If we really care about public safety & allowing people to turn around their lives, we need to allow the most effective systems be used - even if they are faith based systems. Here GWB was showing his real concern, compassion & desire the public get the most for the effort. I heard nothing that said he wanted to give tax money to religion?