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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (421035)	6/30/2003 11:55:26 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Another example is gay marriage. Since they cannot find a reasonable argument against gay marriage Rose...are you actually this blind?. Does not even the law of nature tell you that a man sticking his fist(or anything else up another man's ass is wrong?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (421035)	7/1/2003 12:45:42 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Kevin, I'm taking exception to this statement: The founding fathers were wise indeed. Even though they were deeply religious, they knew that in order for a true democracy to flourish, There is scant evidence to prove that the "Founding Fathers" were of one mind on religion. The predominant mode of thought in this time of Enlightenment was probably that of the deist. George Washington being the prime example: virginiaplaces.org Beyond that, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson seem to have been agnostic, if not atheists. The notion that the Founding Fathers were religious is a myth that seems to be gaining more strength in our dubious national mythology (or psychosis, as I call it on some days <g> ). Foisted by those who would return us to a more medieval way of life where aristocracy and theology had a lock on society's wealth and power, much to the detriment of the public. -Ray

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (421035)	7/1/2003 12:49:04 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

For example, there are a good number of people in the Religious Right who believe that the US is a defacto theocracy, and should be run like one. I don't for the life of me see how they can think that way. There is nothing in the way that our gov't was set up to suggest that possibility. I just found out that the phrase, "under God", was not a part of the original pledge of allegiance. I think it was added in the 50s by conservatives. However, they understand that that is not only contrary to the wishes of the founding fathers, but also would require a ripping up of the Constitution. Not all of them.....some are saying that the FF did want this country to be a theocracy and then they point out obscure phrases in the Constitution that suggest that possibility. So, instead, they hide their true goal behind code words like morality (apparently, a monopoly of the Christian religion). Now you've hit the proverbial nail on its head. They use their interpretation of the Bible to justify all their actions including going to war. Unfortunately, since Jesus and God are not here to explain their positions and since no one has memorized the Bible to the extent they have, its difficult to argue with them, and when you do, you run the risk of being called sacrilegious. Another example is gay marriage. Since they cannot find a reasonable argument against gay marriage that does not require a theocratical government, they use the 'domino' argument (which has to be one of the most fallacious arguments ever). Gay marriage will promote incest, child abuse, etc. Well, can't the dominos fall the other way? A law expressly forbidding gay marriage could be a domino to one that prevents interfaith and interrace marriages, given the same logic. This one blew me right out of the water. I just found out that Frist has started developing an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriages. Apparently, they new the Sup. Ct. would not rule in their favor re. the TX sodomy laws so this was their next step. I am not sure how I feel about marriage between two gays but I sure as hell don't want a constitutional amendment to that effect. What's next......a ban on interracial marriages? The founding fathers were wise indeed. Even though they were deeply religious, they knew that in order for a true democracy to flourish, there had to be a clear separation of their religious doctrine and the laws that protect free men. They were wise but I don't know that they anticipated the kind of people that some of us would become. Last week, while eating dinner one nite, I turned to the Bill O'Reilly show......not a smart move when you're eating. While watching it, I realized that some very fundamental ground has been crossed in this country. Since I was a kid, there have always been conservatives and liberals in this country, and they esentially have co existed by living separate lives. However, of late, the conservatives not only want to live their lives from a narrow, often religion based code of ethics but now they expect the rest of us to do so as well. 9/11 and the subsequent period of patriotic unity has given them a false sense that they are in charge. I think as they become more insistent with foisting their life style on the rest of us, the opposition to them will grow until we are in open conflict. I think that time is fast approaching. And I think the conflict could potentially be as damaging to this country as the Civil War was.