[kidwoo]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137694,00.html

Poin't #4 of things Bush needs to address

Four: President Bush must appoint judges who will hold the Constitution. I don't want ideological judges on either side. I want people who understand how the country was founded. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would not remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. They were fine with references to the deity. That's just one example of understanding how the country was founded.


The pledge of allegiance wasn't written until 1892. The words "under god" weren't added until the 1950s.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

I think the three fine gentlemen he mentions had their political careers pretty much wrapped up by then.

I hope no one here seriously listens to this tool. If you do enjoy his show, at least do so while enjoying some falafel.

 

[MikeD]

The whole 'founding fathers' intent' argument has to be looked at contextually...they were really quite radical thinkers in their day, taking newfangled enlightenment philosophies and making them political reality. You can argue motives, I suppose, but they really were on the very edge. They might have been deist Christians, and comfortable with God, but that was also a pretty out-there stance in those days.

These guys weren't conservative in that aspect. They argued for social freedoms beyond what anyone had seen before. (True, the Magna Carta began it all...but this was breaking out of even that envelope.)

They WERE conservative fiscally, and with getting America embroiled in fruitless exploits abroad, though...

MD

 

[N8 v2.0]

The whole 'founding fathers' intent' argument has to be looked at contextually...they were really quite radical thinkers in their day, taking newfangled enlightenment philosophies and making them political reality. You can argue motives, I suppose, but they really were on the very edge. They might have been deist Christians, and comfortable with God, but that was also a pretty out-there stance in those days.

These guys weren't conservative in that aspect. They argued for social freedoms beyond what anyone had seen before. (True, the Magna Carta began it all...but this was breaking out of even that envelope.)

They WERE conservative fiscally, and with getting America embroiled in fruitless exploits abroad, though...

MD

Thomas Jefferson is my fav... the guy had style and when someone asked him about his religious beliefs he said, "That's between my god and I."

 

[kidwoo]

The whole 'founding fathers' intent' argument has to be looked at contextually...MD

How do you read O'reilly's sentence though?

1. He actually believes that Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison had something to do with the pledge (not to mention actually ever saw it) and were cool with it.

2. As I think you said, these three WOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED if given the chance. Shouldn't he have said "would not have " instead of "would not" which suggests that they at some point really did refuse the option when they had the opportunity.

I took it more as number 1 but could see the argument for number 2. But if it is number 2, isn't that an implied intent from someone who was dead............ and hence the "spin" O'reilly spouts off about being so free of?


Either way, I just thought it was pretty silly........mostly because it sounded to me as if he were saying they refused at some point to remove god's reference from a document none of them ever saw.

 

[Slugman]

Thomas Jefferson is my fav... the guy had style and when someone asked him about his religious beliefs he said, "That's between my god and I."

Sounds like what John Kerry said at the DNC...

 

[MikeD]

KW, I just don't tend to look at O'Reilly's words as that well thought-out. I think his point is just that the Founding Fathers didn't necessarily, as a whole, reject a public place for religion, even while separating church and state. (Which was actually a cornerstone of Jefferson's thought...and I personally don't think he would have ever supported the addition of the 'under God' to the pledge, which was incidentally more of an anti-communist thing than a particularly religious one IMHO)

Therefore, by Mr. Bill's 'logic,' the 'under God' shouldn't be criticized, and I don't think he looks at it any deeper than that. I'm sure he knows the Pledge isn't of colonial/early American origins...whether he knows when the Under God was added, I can't say. He probably does...and probably also knows that most Americans DON'T know this, and assume it's always been this way (and that the Pledge is as old as the country itself).

Actually, though, I think Bill O'Reilly is sort of a Howard Stern of the right wing, who just adopts an inflammatory persona when he's broadcasting...kind of an exaggerated media superhero characterature of himself...not really disingenuous, but just a hyperbolized self-identity. He seemed downright pleasant and thoughtful on the Daily Show interview.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Sounds like what John Kerry said at the DNC...

Yes, but in the debate, he also said "Im a politician who HAPPENS to be Catholic"
Given the importance an actual catholic places on god, shouldnt that be the other way around?

 

[kidwoo]

KW, I just don't tend to look at O'Reilly's words as that well thought-out. .

True.

And neither are my reasons for starting this thread maybe........

 

[Slugman]

Yes, but in the debate, he also said "Im a politician who HAPPENS to be Catholic"
Given the importance an actual catholic places on god, shouldnt that be the other way around?

Nope. How is he any less catholic for not putting it first? The concept (IMO) is to let people know who you are going ot be when representing them, but to also give them insight into who you are.

 

[Damn True]

That sounds nice, and you'd hope it to be true but Kerry's voting record is hardly representative of the values of the average Catholic.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Nope. How is he any less catholic for not putting it first?

Uh...are you serious?

If being a politician is more important than your religion (provided you actually subscribe to it) , you've got some ****ed up priorities. The fact that you fail to grasp that clearly explains why you cant understand the voting public of America.

 

[MikeD]

Uh...are you serious?

If being a politician is more important than your religion (provided you actually subscribe to it) , you've got some ****ed up priorities. The fact that you fail to grasp that clearly explains why you cant understand the voting public of America.

Well, just because Americans at large would put religion first doesn't make it invalid to separate your personal and religious beliefs from a political agenda. In fact, that is much closer to the Founders' intent than to not do so...

Of course, it's not so clear cut a decision as that in the real world, with issues like abortion...and the need to represent (and suck up to) voters to actually be in power in the first place.

MD

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well, just because Americans at large would put religion first doesn't make it invalid to separate your personal and religious beliefs from a political agenda.

MD

How does one base a political agenda then? I mean, if not off your values that you learned through a religion, what values supercede those?

 

[kidwoo]

How does one base a political agenda then? I mean, if not off your values that you learned through a religion, what values supercede those?

I didn't learn that being nice to people creates a functional community/society from a religion necessarily. I didn't need a scripture to know that stealing things weakens civic structures..........or that monetary favoritism widens gaps on many levels between people of different backgrounds. It's easier as a politician to point to a book and say "that's me" but life isn't always so simplistic. I consider myself a pretty moral person (ask anyone on this site who has ever bought anything from me) but I'm also about as agnostic as they come.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I didn't learn that being nice to people creates a functional community/society from a religion necessarily. I didn't need a scripture to know that stealing things weakens civic structures..........or that monetary favoritism widens gaps on many levels between people of different backgrounds. It's easier as a politician to point to a book and say "that's me" but life isn't always so simplistic. I consider myself a pretty moral person (ask anyone on this site who has ever bought anything from me) but I'm also about as agnostic as they come.

But we arent talking about values that go along with a religion that he prescribes to. You can say that becuase you have no set of rules governing what you beleive as an agnostic. Kerry, after claiming to be catholic, doesnt have that luxury. For example, if Kerry says he is for abortion, even though his religion is against it, he has basically said that he is willing to go to hell to be president. That is ****ed up IMO.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There are values that are personal ones and should stay that way. Many people think that it is a sin to work on Sunday, should it be illegal? The question is where you draw that line between a personal value and one that should be forced across society.

If you are a candidate who TRULY believes all people will go to hell if they work on sunday, IMO, he'd be doing his religion a disservice in not trying to keep people from working on Sundays.
Think about it. If you TRULY believed a nuclear bomb were going to be dropped tomorrow, would you not try to warn people?

 

[Westy]

If you are a candidate who TRULY believes all people will go to hell if they work on sunday, IMO, he'd be doing his religion a disservice in not trying to keep people from working on Sundays.
Think about it. If you TRULY believed a nuclear bomb were going to be dropped tomorrow, would you not try to warn people?

There is a difference between warning someone of a danger and limiting their rights. Protecting peoples souls is not the job of ther government.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There is a difference between warning someone of a danger and limiting their rights. Protecting peoples souls is not the job of ther government.

An "actual" catholic would feel that he is protecting them from danger. That's all Im saying.

 

[kidwoo]

But we arent talking about values that go along with a religion that he prescribes to. You can say that becuase you have no set of rules governing what you beleive as an agnostic. .

I politely disagree with that. Just because it's not in a scripture doesn't mean it's not there. While true there are no "guidelines" associated with the wonderful label of agnostic regarding social behaviors, I have many influences and experiences that dictate my position and ensuing behavior that help make up the wonderfully colorful person I happen to be........ :love:

But back to that other guy.....

Kerry, after claiming to be catholic, doesnt have that luxury. For example, if Kerry says he is for abortion, even though his religion is against it, he has basically said that he is willing to go to hell to be president. That is ****ed up IMO.

This is the difference some others are trying to proclaim.........there are certain values that you may hold dearly yourself, but are not necessarily yours to IMPOSE on others. Kerry thinks he's all well and good being a catholic for himself, but doesn't feel justified making his personal values a standard for other people regarding issues that are much more personal than funding infrastructure for example. I don't think he's giving the finger to his religion, more like he recognizes that it's not his place to impose the guidelines of that religion on other people who aren't catholic.

What's worse to me is the opposite. My girlfriend works for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). During 2000-2001 she spent quite a bit of time revising documents to remove the word "condom" from any and all literature put out publicly by the agency because the Bush administration holds a firm stance on abstinence as the best and only way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Because of their beliefs, mammals are going to stop behaving the way they've behaved for millions of years.....based on what I see as on opinion and what flies in the face of decades of evidence. This is supposed to be the leading US conglomeration of medical research and science. That's much more dangerous to me than a politician who says he holds a personal belief but recognizes that belief may not be applicable in other people's lives.

 

[BurlyShirley]

This is the difference some others are trying to proclaim.........there are certain values that you may hold dearly yourself, but are not necessarily yours to IMPOSE on others. Kerry thinks he's all well and good being a catholic for himself, but doesn't feel justified making his personal values a standard for other people regarding issues that are much more personal than funding infrastructure for example. I don't think he's giving the finger to his religion, more like he recognizes that it's not his place to impose the guidelines of that religion on other people who aren't catholic.

But again, the Pope, who runs Kerry's religion has said that leaders who are catholics must be anti-abortion. If Kerry is a true Catholic, he must heed that word. Else, the presidency is worth eternal damnation to him. It's just a Character call that people have to make...

The good thing about being protestant for Bush is that alot is left to interpretation and he can get away with some stuff, but he is (or appears to be) much more genuine in applying his religion to his leadership. Not skirting around it.

What's worse? I dunno. I mean, Im agnostic/atheist depending on the week Im having, but find Christian values to be a good basis for human morality as a whole, so I dont have a problem with Bush...

 

[El Jefe]

But we arent talking about values that go along with a religion that he prescribes to. You can say that becuase you have no set of rules governing what you beleive as an agnostic. Kerry, after claiming to be catholic, doesnt have that luxury. For example, if Kerry says he is for abortion, even though his religion is against it, he has basically said that he is willing to go to hell to be president. That is ****ed up IMO.

Kerry is not for abortion, he's for the legal right to choose abortion. The Christian religion, and all its sects (catholic, protestant, mormon, methodist, etc..) are supposedly teaching that we must CHOOSE to do right. If we do "right" without choice, we really haven't done anything worthy of praise, now have we. Opposition in all things, and the choice between the two must be offered if the true doctrine of christianity is to be upheld.

 

[kidwoo]

But again, the Pope, who runs Kerry's religion has said that leaders who are catholics must be anti-abortion. If Kerry is a true Catholic, he must heed that word. Else, the presidency is worth eternal damnation to him....

True. That pope guy is is dick for doing that. Not like it strays from the catholic church's history of repression through religously indoctrinated government however. Good point though, I guess Kerry really does care bout us downtrodden.....enough become charcoal.......whatta guy!!!

The good thing about being protestant for Bush is that alot is left to interpretation and he can get away with some stuff, but he is (or appears to be) much more genuine in applying his religion to his leadership. Not skirting around it.

What's worse? I dunno. I mean, Im agnostic/atheist depending on the week Im having, but find Christian values to be a good basis for human morality as a whole, so I dont have a problem with Bush...

This is one of the problems I have with everyone saying they voted for bush because of moral reasons. To me, someone who starts a war on false pretenses, gets all mealy mouthed about the reasons later, plus puts into place policies like the one I mentioned above regarding the CDC which will have a detrimental effect on the health of his country.........ESPECIALLY considering the way in which he lived his life up until his 40s is WAY more immoral than someone who don't do what the pope done told him when he claims to be a Catholic. To me just because someone says jesus told them to do it, certainly does not give them an all encompassing realm in which to claim their actions are "moral".

That's the disconnect that I just don't understand.......so many people who are christians give this for their reason for supporting this administration but thousands of people are dead because of them. I'm one of folks who knows the history of Carlyle (more because of G Herbert in the 90s) and really beleives they, Halliburton and folks like Kellog are in Iraq for the accomplishment of a long time goal they've had of resource control. That is neither in line with the teachings of christ nor is it acceptable just because the man in power now says he wants to spread "freedom" while at the same time looking to strengthen the patriot act. This is to me is very amoral. I would think that if you look at the way this president behaves, you would find a serious discrepency between the values most of us hold dear and the decisions these guys have made.

Thanks for discussing this with me though. It's nice to actually exchange ideas without sounding like party affiliated sound bites stuck on a loop.

 

[Silver]

They might have been deist Christians, and comfortable with God, but that was also a pretty out-there stance in those days.

That's something that doesn't get brought up enough. "The founding fathers were Christian!"

Um...no, a lot of them weren't. Being a Deist was probably as close as you could get to being atheist in those days and still have an explanation for the natural world. Especially when you consider being called atheist in the middle 1700's was just short of being called a witch.