Posted By Ed,Ellenville,New York

Ed, have you been living under the rock lately? Romney is leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. With Rudy's campaign being wounded by his protégé Kerik, voters are paying more and more attention to Romney's campaing, that would ultimately make him a Republican nominee for the White House. Once there, Gov. Romney's name will be nationally recognized and he will be home free since no Democtractic canditate will be able to stop him from winning general election.

In case, they don't print my response a second time:

I have tried twice to respond, but the gods of the blog required me to kill a goat in sacrifice and I just didn't have the heart. Sorry. there is a response, but they have chosen you the winner.

Indeed your intellect is dizzying. Unfortunately, you are so hyped up to get your point across that your reading skills have deteriorated a bit. Oh well, just like our President, don't let the facts stop you when you're on a roll.

First, you start out of the box with: "You cannot argue that many peoples morals and ethics were built upon their religious teachings. That in itself will effect their politics." On this you are absolutely correct, but I do not concede because, if you will read what I said, I didn't argue that. Just for fun, let me quote myself [I'm such an egoist]: "You are partially right about the county being founded on Christian values but ONLY IF you say Judeo-Christian values and ONLY IF you note that this is so because the Founders were products of European cultures so founded." The key point, which you ignored, was the next sentence: "You are wrong to assume that such values were intentionally incorporated by the Founders into bedrock of this Republic."

OK, small oversight. Next you state: "Back when this country was being formed, someone defined as without religion, would be considered very religious today." You then go on with several factoids showing our founders as doing something religious.
Well, ipso facto (I went to Catholic college as well–I loved Summa Theologica, did you?), I'm sunk. so, because some practices in a way less fervent than ours, I cannot debate whether the RELIGIOUS (not spiritual) ties of the Founders were not strong. Of course all of them had religious involvement to some extent, but where were they at the finish line. Franklin's oft-humorous letters to the many preachers trying to save his soul in old age are good reading. Adams was Unitarian (he would not be part of Christian Nation nowadays) and we know Jefferson was pilloried in Northern churches as an atheist for his Deist beliefs. Did he study the Bible, almost assuredly. Whether you look at it as religious scripture, a book of human wisdom, or a book of human/cultural history, it would be something a learned man like Jefferson would read. OK. Your point was.?

We somehow come to the same square when you say: "That major should play a MAJOR role in an individuals life, but not society as a whole." That is the point that I was making.

Yet, you really shoot yourself with the next statement: "You say these people were "lite" in their formal TRAINING." [capitalization mine] You then go on a roll to support this with a myriad of factoids. Problem was, JB, I didn't say that. I hate to derail such a well-oiled train, but here's what I said [roll the tape]:
"You are completely wrong in terms of the views of the Founders. With FEW exceptions, most were very light in terms of formal RELIGION." Also, I did not use the modern spelling of "light." Believe me, there's a difference between formal religious training, and formal religion, yet both can be true. For example, I was raised in the Catholic Church and recieved formal training in it; I no longer practice. I received formal religious training, but am light on formal religion. This wouldn't be such a difficult point had you quoted me correctly.

As to your conclusion that: "I think you need to go back to school. Who's the revisionist now?" I will go back for religious history, if you'll take a basic reading course.

We do agree that religion should NOT play a direct role in politics, that the founding fathers thought the same, and that their religious training (as well as the religious beliefs of their times) AFFECTED the way they established this country.

As for "progressives" and religion, I think the point has been overplayed by Republicans in order to mobilize the religious right. You are right that I am a "progressive" (I like that term). Like MOST progressives, we are not atheists our devil-worshippers. I believe fervently in God and almost became a priest. Many of my progressive friends are active church member [not just Adams' Unitarian Church either, though it is close to my current belief]. We just fear a Cromwellianism that naturally occurs when Church and State mix. This is especially dangerous with the mix of fundamentalist views and State as it pertains to challenges to science that will affect our ability/willingness to take on global warming.

As to your statement: "Their [sic] are many Christians in Massachusetts and you can't get much Bluer than Massachusetts." I know. I am originally from the Bay State–Go Sox, Go Pats, Go Celts, Go BC, even Go Bruins! We are not that different JB.

When I infer things to the "Christian Nation" phrase, it is not because I live in New England where religion is "one's own business," it is from living down here where that phrase often accompanies articles that bemoan the existence of non-Christians–when what they mean is Christians like them–which, when push came to shove, would not include RCs, Mormons, Lutherans, etc.

As for your final quote by Sam Adams-thanks. Gotta love good radicals and great beer.

This is from a guy who married his first cousin, right?!?!?!

Posted By b : November 11, 2007 8:31 pm

Actually second cousin, but who's counting?

As for those who like Rudy, please take him and make him mayor or governor of your town or state. Some of us already lived through his tyranny and don't wish to suffer through another reign of his one more time!!!

This is from a guy who married his first cousin, right?!?!?!

"I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes."

After Hillary gets elected you won't even have that $35 cuz she is gonna take and take and take AND TAKE from the private sector to build up a gov't massive entitlements programs.

You also forgot her attributes of dishonesty, disingeniousness, pandering and her power-hungry ruthlessness, along with the rest of the lying Clintonistas.

This is the same candidate that whined about Clinton attacking Bush and the other Republicans before the primary was decided. Maybe he should take his own advise and stick with talking about Romney and McCain before testing his lukewarm record against the Democrats.

Giuliani needs to address his own waffling problems along with Romney. It's going to be a "None of the Above" ticket this year for the Republicans unless they find someone better in their ranks.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

http://www.voteforhillaryonline.com

Ron Paul is making a lot of sense right now. I'm usually Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton back in the day, and he was the best. However, there is NO WAY I would EVER vote for Hillary. I don't trust her judgement, and she voted to put us into Iraq.

We need to start giving the alternative candidates more attention.

You opened up your post, and I thought "oh no, here we go".

"Revisionist view of American History"???????

You cannot argue that many peoples morals and ethics were built upon their religious teachings. That in itself will effect their politics. PERIOD. Back when this country was being formed, someone defined as without religion, would be considered very religious today. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was going to be a minister? Sam Adams never missed church. John Adams was very religious. He was a Unitarian and thought religion should play a MAJOR role in an individuals life, but not society as a whole.

You say these people were "lite" in their formal training. Jefferson was extensively trained in religion as well, however, he believed the mysticism found in the Bible to be. . .unbelievable. But certainly is not "lite" in his teachings. Some say he read the Bible more than any other book. He did think that religion was responsible for many problems in society.

I think you need to go back to school. Who's the revisionist now?

I do not believe that ANY religion should play a direct role in politics. And you are right, many of the founding fathers thought the same. But, the effects on their extensive religious training AFFECTED the way they established this country.

I also think you "progressives" are making a HUGE mistake alienating those who have some sort of faith in their lives. Their are many Christians in Massachusetts and you can't get much Bluer than Massachusetts.

And finally, I would like to quote Samuel Adams-

"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society."

I can go all day Jay. I would love to hear your response. I can assure that what I have posted is accurate.

Giuilani wrong for President, Wrong on issues.

Clinton Good for Enviorment, Good for Social Security and Retirement.

For those of you truly condsidering "sitting out" the voting process next year,I URGE YOU, PLEASE DO NOT SIT OUT THE VOTE???" This is how the wrong people get elected, and take this nation farther down the tubes. Voter apathy is the greatest threat to democracy. Not "terrorism", "Al Quaeda", Bush, Clinton, ect....but the American peoples' lack of concern for what their leaders do with their nation.

Everyone on this post is busy insulting the candidates and comparing them, when what they should be doing is looking at where the candidates stand on crucial issues, to make informed decisions next year. We're not looking at this race from an objective, rational standpoint. It's basically a national, highschool popularity contest.

For anyone considering not voting, because you are fed up with the main candidates like Guliani and Clinton, I urge you to seriously consider the other candidates with lesser known names. The US media drives so much of public decisions politically. Because only certain candidates receive more than their share of media coverage(Giuliani/Clinton), they get nearly all the attention from the voting public. Because of that, we, the people, end up with a bad leader in either case, nobody wins. People are only presented with Hillary and Giuliani as "THE" candidates for their respective parties. People are already resigning themselves to either one of the runners. WHY? If voters aren't happy with either candidate, then look at candidates farther down the line. Look at RON PAUL, if you absolutely HAVE to vote republican. Look at candidates like BILL RICHARDSON, and others if you must vote democrat.

Think, Americans. Listen, look deep into alternatices for President, listen to what they have to say. You may surprise yourselves and find a better leader. Much better than the current run of the mill (Clinton/Giuliani)

You are completely wrong in terms of the views of the Founders. With FEW exceptions, most were very light in terms of formal religion. Washington was Episcopalian but only because it was the established religion of Virginia at the time and church positions were the equivalent of community leadership positions. He was often chided from the pulpit for his failure to attend. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Madison all were noted for their abhorance to formal religion, even to a deity that took any personal role in our lives.

Finally, I shudder when I hear the phrase "Christian Nation." It is an invitation to religious intolerance by the backdoor. If you don't agree, let me ask you this: Just who's Christianity will be Nationalized? It's all fine so long as the country has a non-Christian population. If they are successfully marginalized, would the Christian Nationalists still be happy to march with Mormons? Catholics and Episcopalians? Lutherans? Who's next after that? sooner or later, the test of Christian Nationalism will eliminate all but only a few and they probably will share nothing in common with the Prince of Peace or the 12 Apostles.

Senator Biden was right, Rudy is a noun a verb and 9/11, totally unqualified to be President.

And please, keep me from gagging; his performance before, during and after 9/11 was NOT anything to brag about. And the best witness to that is the first responders of New York have absolutely NO RESPECT for the man. I will go with their judgement, after all, they were there.

Charactor? The man has no charactor! His personal life is in worse condition than Senator Clinton's and always has been.

At the risk of insulting Newark, he is not qualified to be Mayor of Newark, New Jersey much less President of the United States.

Also, the Iraq Study Group was set up to find real solutions to real and immediate problems yet you dropped out and showed no commitment whatsoever. Now you're expecting us to trust you with America's problems? Keep dreaming!

Posted By Retired Sgt. Alex Brown Chicago : November 11, 2007 9:31 am

Sergeant, the "mental midget" is YOU. Only idiots and crack addicts believe anything that comes out of the mouth of George W. Bush. Face facts...he LIED. Every bit of objective evidence proves it conclusively. Instead of calling war opponents "left wing idiots" you'd better get a grip on reality yourself. God Bless our President?" I'm looking forward to seeing him in an orange jumpsuit doing the perp walk with Dick Cheney.

You obviously don't know me. I went to a Catholic High School, a Catholic College, and have studied more religions than you can name. On top of that I was a Political Science major with a minor in Philosophy. So, I think I do know what I am talking about. "In God We Trust" you weiner!

I'm not interested in taglines, Rudy.

Cheney is still preaches that Iraq is responsible for 911 ...