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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim-thompson who wrote (30131)	10/17/2004 11:30:00 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 173976

You'll get a laugh out of this one... Message 20654383 jttmab

To: jim-thompson who wrote (30131)	10/17/2004 11:33:20 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

U.S. was not founded as Christian nation GUEST COLUMN While listening to WRFD radio station a while back, I heard the host of the program make the ludicrous point that the U.S. was meant to be "Christian" nation, but that unfortunately it has turned out not to be. Perhaps just as problematical was his assertion that if we were indeed a "Christian" nation, it would be better for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera, because Christianity is a faith of peace and acceptance. He apparently does not understand that our government is based on the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention this idea at all. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) states that, "... the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." A bit later, a caller sought to affirm the host's thoughts by mentioning three issues which in her mind proved that we were indeed meant to be a Christian country: "In God We Trust" is on our currency, "Under God" is included in the Pledge of Allegiance and the President puts his hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God" when sworn into office While she was certainly correct in her factual observations, I would like to take a closer look at these three issues. First, "In God We Trust" was initially used on U.S. coins during the Civil War. It was not officially ratified as our national motto until 1956. A strong argument could be made that the motto it replaced, E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) is much more appropriate in that it includes all citizens rather than only those who are monotheists. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson proposed this motto in 1776. Next we have "Under God." It was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, at the urging of the Knights of Columbus. The original pledge written in 1892 states; "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Lastly we have the question of the tradition of placing a hand on the Bible and the presidential oath ending with "so help me God." The oath for the highest office as taken verbatim from the Constitution, Article II Section I is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Technically, each President who adds "so help me God" is revising the document he is swearing to defend. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the delegates debated the question of official religion. They also discussed whether government should provide funding for churches. After much thought and vigorous debate, the majority of delegates decided that the federal government would remain neutral toward religion. May we always be supportive of this great experiment. Lastly, a personal message -- Please consider a vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. He is a deeply religious man who understands that his beliefs are personal and not to be imposed on others through laws or executive orders.

To: jim-thompson who wrote (30131)	10/17/2004 11:36:03 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 173976

LEXINGTON, Ky. — A campaign billboard ad that invokes the name of Jesus while asking voters to re-elect a Lexington councilman is drawing some strong reactions. The billboard, which went up Thursday, proclaims "Elect Jesus Christ Savior," and includes a box saying "Jacques Wigginton for Council." Wigginton said the sign was intended to endorse and support the "Elect Jesus" campaign — a local initiative that he started to promote faith and community involvement — not to advocate his candidacy. But his opponent, Tom Blues, said the councilman appears to be likening himself to Christ. "He's certainly putting his name on the same level and in the same context" as Jesus, Blues said. "The implication is clear that if you elect Jesus, then you'll elect Jacques. Not only is it sacrilegious ... it's a kind of desperate, even hysterical sort of appeal to the 2nd District electorate." Wigginton said he's shocked that the billboard has been interpreted as an attempt to compare himself to Jesus. In designing the billboard, Wigginton said, he emphasized making the "Wigginton for Council" box as small as possible. ... courier-journal.com

To: jim-thompson who wrote (30131)	10/17/2004 11:39:00 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 173976

Births must keep up with immigrants, cardinal tells Catholics uploaded 17 Oct2004 JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT CARDINAL Keith O’Brien has said that Catholics must have more children or face seeing their faith eclipsed by the religions of immigrants. In remarks that risk sparking political anger, he said members of the Church hierarchy fear immigrant groups could "take over" in western European countries because they have more children than indigenous Christians. The Scottish Executive wants to encourage more immigrants to come to Scotland, while the Tories warned earlier this month that, uncurbed, the flow of migrants into the UK could threaten traditional British values. Recalling a trip to Vienna, Cardinal O’Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, described the fears of a guide who showed him around the Austrian capital. "She said: ‘You know, we are losing our Christian Catholic community. We are not having babies, but the immigrants, they love babies, love families, love family life, have many many children, and soon they will be taking over’," Cardinal O’Brien said, adding: "Basically, that reflects the views of some of our own Church leaders at this time." The cardinal did not mention any particular group of immigrants or name any religion, but other Catholic leaders have publicly said they are worried that rising Muslim immigration to Europe could tip the demographic balance against their faith. Ministers and business leaders have argued that more immigration is the answer to labour shortages, and the cardinal lent some support to that effort earlier this year, encouraging Canadians of Scots descent to return to the country. But he suggested that, for Catholics in Scotland, the focus should be on increasing the number of children they have. "I would say to our own people, have a look around, remember the joys of your own family," he said. The cardinal’s remarks about immigration were made in a BBC radio interview broadcast last month. It can still be heard on the BBC’s website. Last night, a spokesman for the cardinal said he "totally accepts" the case for encouraging immigration and was simply drawing attention to the "dramatic" variation in the birth rates of different groups. He said the Church in Scotland was not concerned by immigration, although other Church leaders elsewhere in Europe may feel otherwise. The cardinal is passing the first anniversary of his appointment, and is today interviewed in The Scotsman to mark the occasion. Source: Scotsman khilafah.com