NationStates Jolt Archive

It is EASY to SAY you are a Christian. It is much harder to actually BE a Christian.

Consider this writing, by Maya Angelou, which was given me this day by a kind-hearted co-worker...

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'"
I'm whispering "I was lost,"
Now I'm found and forgiven.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I am weak
and need HIS strength to carry on.

Wehn I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.

When I say "I am Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow.


Now, does any of THAT actually sound like George W. Bush, the man full of nothing but braggadocio...the bellicose man who believes himself better than everyone else, and who looks down his nose at those who are different, or tries to use them as wedge issues to win elections?

Have ANY of you ever heard George W. Bush EVEN ONCE own up to making any mistakes? EVER?? Have you EVER heard him apologize, and ask for forgiveness from those whom he has wronged, in his thoughts, words, and deeds?

I know I NEVER HAVE!! No, George W. Bush does not, in my eyes, measure up to being a Christian...and don't tell me "Judge not, lest ye be judged," because I will come right back and tell you that even THE BIBLE say, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." And by his fruits, I know George W. Bush.

George W. Bush has succeeded in tearing apart and dividing this country. He has succeeded in minimalizing many minority groups, and trivializing their real pain and suffering to gain political edge. Take for example the whole gay marriage wedge issue. On one hand, he says it should be left to the States...yet, he STILL tries to get a Federal Constitutional Amendment?!?!? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Bush!! What is it??

And, in closing, I will share another writing with you, this by a respected member of the Maryland and DC bar, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, Alyson Meiselman....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transgender Legal Advisor
"We the people"
by Alyson Meiselman


"We the people" - the United States Constitution begins with these three words. These words precede "the people['s]" statement of shared commitment to improving their quality of life and equality of opportunity and to securing the blessings of liberty for present and future generations. In these three words, there is no mention of race, there is no mention of gender, nor is there any reference to religious affiliation, to ethnic background, to marital status or to sexual orientation. Simply and eloquently, the first words of the United StatesConstitution are words of inclusion. Yet, for many U.S. citizens these words carry no such promise. These citizens live and work and raise their families knowing that, truly, they are not part of "the people." These citizens are gays and lesbians, bi-sexuals, trangenders and intersexed. And, for that -- for being who they are --they are ridiculed, ostracized, despised, demonized and condemned. Their pleas for respect and for equal justice are answered by their government, by their institutions -- and by "We the people" -- with intolerance and bigotry, albeit impeccably adorned in sanctimonious rhetoric, sterile logic and hollow assurances.

The above paragraph was written by Justice James C. Nelson of the Montana Supreme Court, except for those words italicized, which are mine, and which I believe reflect the plight of many in our community, not just those of Montana's gay and lesbian community. [The above referenced case is: Carol Snetsinger, et al. v. Montana University System, et al., No. 03-238, Supreme Court of Montana, Decided: December 30, 2004.]

Why was there the need for such a statement to be written in 2004? Consider the following:

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]"

At least that was what our Founding Fathers (and, Mothers) thought at the creation of our democracy. President John Adams signed the above statement into law as part of the Treaty of Tripoli after the United States Senate unanimously ratified the document on June 7, 1797.

In the last week we have heard our present President of the United States effectively declare that the Oath of office, that he will again take this January, does not mean what it says, and, that he will continue to violate it by continuing to advance his "Christian" beliefs into the actions of his government. The President said he can't see anyone being President without a close "relationship" with God. The President implied that he has such a "relationship." [The psychological implications of such would render most of us 'normal' people in a special ward of our local hospital, especially if we are a danger to ourselves or others.]

How utterly sad and disappointing!

Before you, the readers of this column, initiate attacking me, think about who "we" are. For example, I, too, am a religious person. But, I'm not a Christian. I, too, am a citizen of the United States and patriotic. But, I am not a citizen or patriot that would impose my personal beliefs on the 290,000,000 other citizens of my country, especially my religious beliefs. I was 'brought up' in a country (the U.S., in D.C., and primarily raised in the Washington metropolitan Maryland area) that did not just merely allow but heralded freedom of religion, but that additionally had and understood the reasons for a clear line between church and state. That freedom and separation of church and state allowed me to practice my religious beliefs without sanction and to do so without the government, and in many situations, individuals, from discriminating against me based on my beliefs.

What about you? Would you want me to dictate to you what you believed? Would you want me to determine for you what is "morally" acceptable, based on my religious beliefs? Would you want me to govern you based on my religious beliefs that are not yours also?

(It occurred to me that if you answered "yes" to the last three questions, 'you' would likely prefer to live in a society like Iran, or some other country where such controls presently exist, so long as the controls agreed with your own set of beliefs. However, if you answered "yes" to the last three questions, 'you' would also be one to fight against such controls if they did not agree with your beliefs. I identify individuals who express such logic as "situational problematic hypocrites.")

The present struggle in the United States between the "faith-based" Right, and, those who believe, as I do, in personal freedom, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, is one, so fundamental to the basis of "the Great Experiment" [an historical reference to the United States] and the documents that were drawn as our structural foundation [the Constitution, as example], that the tampering we are presently witnessing should be viewed as a danger sign.

Certainly, without question, our Founding Fathers (and Mothers), who struggled so hard to free themselves from the tyranny of religious and political oppression in the Europe of the sixteen and seventeen hundreds (and before), would be shocked to see that their great, great, great, etc., grandchildren had fallen back into the clutch of religiously based political oppression. What price will we have to pay to restore our rights established so many years ago?

Political "capital" or not, the President should have enough common sense and control to keep his personal religiously based beliefs separate and apart from his role as leader of "We the people" and to persuade his party, in control of our national legislature, both houses of Congress, and many State legislatures, to resist the temptation to enshrine "Christian" beliefs into the national fabric of our society.

Europe learned this lesson the hard way. The E.U. is now more advanced than the U.S. Perhaps it is time for the United States to learn from the experience of other nations - a novel idea!

HAHAHAHA "political capital"... that kills me.

I am a Christian. I also really dislike President Bush. I did not vote for him because I disagreed with his views (which I think are decidedly not Christian). Dubya is not a Christian president... he is a politician who has found a way to use religion as political power. Consider that he ran pro-choice for Texas State Congress and later changed his mind. That is a very non-Bible belt Christian thing to do.

However, I am really amazed at how many people would be okay with telling me I am a non person just because I am a Christian. This is a democracy people. Everyone in that democracy (besides felons) who is of voting age gets a voice. If you do not like my voice, fine! By my beliefs are my beliefs and I get to have them. Government needs to stay out of my religion. But I cannot keep my religion out of my political views. If it is really a belief, it is true to you. I do not know about you, but why would I want someone in office who is going to believe one way and do another... this is not honest. I vote on someone for their beliefs because they represent me. This is a representative republic... our system. If someone does not believe like me, I am not likely to vote them in. But, once someone is voted in, we should expect them to follow their beliefs. This is what humans should do, they should follow what they feel is right. Religion is not abolished by our founding documents, it is encouraged! If you are Buddist... act like one. Speak from your belief and your conviction as a Buddist... if you really believe in it. If you are an athiest... talk like one, believe like one. If you are a Christian, the same goes for you. When did we become so lazy and discontented as members of a democracy. This sytem of government is hard, it is not easy to live in. Sorry, it's the system we have, and I thank God for it. And you do not have the right to tell me I cannot say that. I am a Christian in our society... don't like it... don't vote for me.

P.S. - Bush really is a huge tool.

bush is a politician, he'll say anything to get his ratings up, religion is just another easy target for snagging more votes.

Bush does not = Christian, he is a fake, just like everyone else, who says Jesus doesnt like homosexuals, however Jesus never said that, and the anti-homo thing is in a completely different part of the bible, Bush is also not a conservative, as they push for little spending and small govt.

Ok , I'm new to this and all but still, i support President Bush 100%. If it weren't for Bush we would be in a lot of positions that we wouldnt want to. I highly disagree with all of you. President Bush is a good christian and i support him.

It is EASY to SAY you are a Christian. It is much harder to actually BE a Christian.

Consider this writing, by Maya Angelou, which was given me this day by a kind-hearted co-worker...

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'"
I'm whispering "I was lost,"
Now I'm found and forgiven.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I am weak
and need HIS strength to carry on.

Wehn I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.

When I say "I am Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow.


Now, does any of THAT actually sound like George W. Bush, the man full of nothing but braggadocio...the bellicose man who believes himself better than everyone else, and who looks down his nose at those who are different, or tries to use them as wedge issues to win elections?

Have ANY of you ever heard George W. Bush EVEN ONCE own up to making any mistakes? EVER?? Have you EVER heard him apologize, and ask for forgiveness from those whom he has wronged, in his thoughts, words, and deeds?

I know I NEVER HAVE!! No, George W. Bush does not, in my eyes, measure up to being a Christian...and don't tell me "Judge not, lest ye be judged," because I will come right back and tell you that even THE BIBLE say, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." And by his fruits, I know George W. Bush.

George W. Bush has succeeded in tearing apart and dividing this country. He has succeeded in minimalizing many minority groups, and trivializing their real pain and suffering to gain political edge. Take for example the whole gay marriage wedge issue. On one hand, he says it should be left to the States...yet, he STILL tries to get a Federal Constitutional Amendment?!?!? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Bush!! What is it??

Amen. Great Post.

Ok , I'm new to this and all but still, i support President Bush 100%. If it weren't for Bush we would be in a lot of positions that we wouldnt want to. I highly disagree with all of you. President Bush is a good christian and i support him.


Care to explain why?

bush is a politician, he'll say anything to get his ratings up, religion is just another easy target for snagging more votes.

exactly true!

Anyway, I found this to be a most interesting post, especially as I am working on my undergraduate dissertation at the moment, which concerns establishment clause of the US constitution :)

I do agree that Bush does not, strictly speaking, follow Christian values very much (at least in his public life). However, this does not mean that he does not believe he is doing what is right. How then can I agree with the above statement, then, you ask? Simple - politicians 'know' they're right, but often have trouble convincing the 'ignorant' masses of this so will stop at nothing to get the votes they need :)

Ok , I'm new to this and all but still, i support President Bush 100%. If it weren't for Bush we would be in a lot of positions that we wouldnt want to. I highly disagree with all of you. President Bush is a good christian and i support him.

So tell us where we would be without Bush? What horrible things would happen if he wasn't president?

Amen, bucksnort. Couldn't have put it better myself.

God(s) has/have no place in government. Most of Europe has learned its lesson when it comes to things like this so uh...what's the deal, Bushie?

And how could a mass murderer be a "Good Christian"? He wouldn't even admit his own f#ckup when nothing resembling a WMD could be found in Iraq...
The past few Presidents have demonstrated fairly unchristian decisions (like supporting Israel and -- more specifically -- Ariel Sharon (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/zionazis/SatanicSharon.html) ...even though he ordered the massacre (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=1191129) of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians a few years back, as well as the more recent mass refuge "cleansings" ). Nader '08!

So tell us where we would be without Bush? What horrible things would happen if he wasn't president?

Well, we wouldn't be as hated around the world as we are today, for one thing.
If there's anything that would set would make our country less safe and more prone to attack it's that.
Oh, and then there's the brainwashing...

wow braggodocio is a real word, neat

Bucksnort- Check out this site
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

Proves not all Christians are fundie nuts. :fluffle:

Europe learned this lesson the hard way. The E.U. is now more advanced than the U.S. Perhaps it is time for the United States to learn from the experience of other nations - a novel idea!
Highly debatable. The only thing they really are is more socialist and France is being effectively overrun by muslim immigrants.

P.S. - Bush really is a huge tool.
Surprisingly, a factual statement. Unfortunately he's less of a tool than Kerry is so he stayed in office.

So long as we can still say...

BUSH = DUMBASS

Highly debatable. The only thing they really are is more socialist and France is being effectively overrun by muslim immigrants.
Well, at least France is a secular nation, with a president guided by reason (and, admittedly, greed), unlike the US with it's president guided by fanaticism, delusion, anger and greed.

True, Muslims are a problem in Europe, but at least, Europeans try to tackle it not by putting them into camps or going into their native countries and shooting people left and right, but by trying to integrate them into the existing society.

And for the record, in the US, trying to make discrimination of homosexuals part of the constitution - and thus, part the basic, unshakeable principles of the nation, on even ground with freedom of speech, the right to vote and the right to buy weapons and shoot each other - will win you elections. In Europe, merely saying homosexuality is a sin (something that is taught in US schools) will have you lose any chance of being nominated a commissioner.

Europe is by far not perfect. But in that department, it makes the US look old, backwater, and much like a Christian Iran.

Bush=Christian.... I could see that.

Because most Christians I know are, in fact, self-righteous assholes who think they know best and, if allowed, would dictate the lives and rights of as many others as possible.... *nod* Sounds alot like Meestor Bush to me.

Alas, not all martyrs see divinity. But at least you tried...

And I support Israel, even if I do disagree with alot of their policies. Gotta root for the underdog. And Israel is -the- underdog. I mean, the battle of the Golan Heights was a modern-day Thermopylae, and unlike the Spartans, the Israelis came out victorious. Gotta respect that.

Israel is -the- underdog.
Well, they're one mean, well-armed, rich, nuclear underdog then.

Gotta root for the underdog.
GO ZARQAWI!!! :p :rolleyes:

technically, most of all americans that own a computer aren't TRUE christians.

I sincerely doubt anyone here has given away all their belongings and lived like christ.

I, of course, am on that list of "weak" chrsitians that can't live up to our own teachings. However, I can at least admit that. Others on this board spend their time hypocritically calling others to a faith they don't fully follow. **caughcommando2hackcough**

Ok , I'm new to this and all but still, i support President Bush 100%. If it weren't for Bush we would be in a lot of positions that we wouldnt want to. I highly disagree with all of you. President Bush is a good christian and i support him.Whose puppet are you?

Well, at least France is a secular nation, with a president guided by reason (and, admittedly, greed), unlike the US with it's president guided by fanaticism, delusion, anger and greed.

True, Muslims are a problem in Europe, but at least, Europeans try to tackle it not by putting them into camps or going into their native countries and shooting people left and right, but by trying to integrate them into the existing society.

And for the record, in the US, trying to make discrimination of homosexuals part of the constitution - and thus, part the basic, unshakeable principles of the nation, on even ground with freedom of speech, the right to vote and the right to buy weapons and shoot each other - will win you elections. In Europe, merely saying homosexuality is a sin (something that is taught in US schools) will have you lose any chance of being nominated a commissioner.

Europe is by far not perfect. But in that department, it makes the US look old, backwater, and much like a Christian Iran.
:rolleyes: Riiight, a christian Iran. Germany just jacked out about 200 muslim hardliners, the Netherlands are in turmoil, and France banned all headgear in schools for pretty much the express purpose of banning headscarves. Also, you might want to keep up with current events. Bush has pretty much dropped the amendment bit because it was basically an easy way to bring the issue to the forefront of american society and decision making so as the issue wouldn't get rammed through the american court system under the radar of the general public, and he probably never meant to actually go through with it all the way in the first place.

However, I can at least admit that. Others on this board spend their time hypocritically calling others to a faith they don't fully follow. **caughcommando2hackcough**
I think we should collect all of his outrageous posts in a single thread so they can be shown as an example of how not to conduct yourself.

Ok , I'm new to this and all but still, i support President Bush 100%. If it weren't for Bush we would be in a lot of positions that we wouldnt want to. I highly disagree with all of you. President Bush is a good christian and i support him.

So tell us where we would be without Bush? What horrible things would happen if he wasn't president?

Maybe we would actually have a strong economy, be respected, and oot be giving money to Haliburten all the time. Maybe we would have someone with a brain for a president. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Riiight, a christian Iran.

Oh yeah, man from the land of the delusional airheads ... dream of your precious freedoms ... fact is that the president is pushing christian agendas left and right, from the education system ("just wait" campaign, support to have evolution banned from the curriculum) to banning abortion ("culture of life", and odd word out of the mouth of a man who signed hundreds of execution warrants in his time in Texas), to his inauguration speech, which would have been better fitted as a church adress.

Germany just jacked out about 200 muslim hardliners, the Netherlands are in turmoil, and France banned all headgear in schools for pretty much the express purpose of banning headscarves.
Yeah, France banned headscarves, and can Gogh's murder sent shockwaves through the Netherlands. It was only some 50 radicals who were sent back to their homelands, though. France banned headscarves (as well as kippas, turbans, and any other large piece of clothing assicoated with faitgh) because there were quite some nasty cases of fundamentalist gangs (paid for by America's great friend and ally, the democratic model state of Saudi Arabia) burning women alive for not wearing the headscarf in public.

You can argue whether they went a bit overboard with this, yes. But at least, French schools aren't pawns of religious fundamentalist fringe groupe. Unlike schools in the states.

Also, you might want to keep up with current events. Bush has pretty much dropped the amendment bit because it was basically an easy way to bring the issue to the forefront of american society and decision making so as the issue wouldn't get rammed through the american court system under the radar of the general public, and he probably never meant to actually go through with it all the way in the first place.
Aaah, so what precisely will happen now? According to polls, most Americans would have supported the amendment anyway (70%, at least that's what I read on CNN back in election days) .. well, doesn't precisely look like there will be anything like registered partnerships then, eh? At best, keeping the status quo ... but alas, being gay is a sin, gays are evil people who will go to hell, and all that ... so inthe end, the fire-and-brimstone faction wins.

Again.

So yes, the US is very close to being a Christian Iran. At least compared to secular states.

Maybe we would actually have a strong economy, be respected, and oot be giving money to Haliburten all the time. Maybe we would have someone with a brain for a president. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq.
Alternatively we could be in a major depression with even more terrorist attacks. This ain't a Turtledove novel, so quit speculating.

Alternatively we could be in a major depression with even more terrorist attacks. This ain't a Turtledove novel, so quit speculating.
Yeah, because Iraq has heightened support for America's agenda and lowered support for terrorists in the muslim world by a large margin. After all, if your brothers-in-faith are shot in large numbers by US soldiers who wave in the dark and then fire away because, without night vision googles, noone can see them waving, are waht must convince you of the soldiers' homeland's good intentions and general kindness, right?

Without Iraq, the US would certainly not be as despised as it is now. And yes, that si hurting you. Because, if supporting the US means the government doing so will lose any election (or face a terror campaign by angry students who hate the US for what it does), noone will support the US any more.

And you cannot go the war on terror alone. Even the thickhead in the oval office has understood that.

If Gore had made it into office in the 2000 elections then it is uncertain that we would ever have even gone into Afghanistan. This would have left most of the AQ terrorist network intact. It's much moe likely that there would have been another terrorist attack by now if that scenario occured.

The network IS intact, Bookworms ... just that AQ has split up a bit more. But they're regrouping in Iraq.

afghanistan was a success, but Bush HAD to waste that success because he wanted to get back at Saddam for wanting to kill his daddy, and to show his daddy that he is better than him by finishing off Saddam, whom daddy left in office over a decade ago.

If Gore had made it into office in the 2000 elections then it is uncertain that we would ever have even gone into Afghanistan. This would have left most of the AQ terrorist network intact. It's much moe likely that there would have been another terrorist attack by now if that scenario occured.
There's also no certainty that 9/11 would have happened. In fact, it probably wouldn't have.

Do think Gore would have been so preoccupied with planning a war in Iraq of the first day that he would ignore a document entitled "bin Laden determined to attack within the United States"? Or the report about how an airplane full of fuel could be used as a weapon? Do you think Gore would have ignored Clinton's full plan to kill every single al Queada member because of partisan pride? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a fool. Perhaps if Bush hadn't disenfranchised all those thousands of black people in Florida my father's freind Kent would still have a place to work.

Bucksnort- Check out this site
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

Proves not all Christians are fundie nuts. :fluffle:

I am actually on Rev. Raymond Dubuque's list. I just don't post very often, but thanks for the heads-up, even though I have known about, and been a member of, liberalslikechrist for nearly two years now...

If Gore had made it into office in the 2000 elections then it is uncertain that we would ever have even gone into Afghanistan. This would have left most of the AQ terrorist network intact. It's much moe likely that there would have been another terrorist attack by now if that scenario occured.
To use your own quote against you:

This ain't a Turtledove novel, so quit speculating. :eek:

Going into Iraq was the nicest thing we could have done for Al Queda. They probably use pictures of Bush on their recruiting posters. If Gore had been in office, we might not have been attacked. We'll never know.

to the sad person that started this: no one needs your spun, biased, propeganda bullshit. if you can't handle Bush being in office, WHO WON FAIR AND SQUARE by the people who voted for him (and don't go off on the electoral, he got the popular vote) then move to some other country. we don't need people like you here.

Yeah, get out people with opinions that don't correspond exactly with my own, jerks.

Im probably gonna get flamed by this but I might as well say it.

You are a fool and you use the most sorry excuse in the world. The U.S is a country of Immigrants, like it or not WE made this country what it is today. Off the backs of African American Slaves, off the back of the Irish community. Americans should be in no higher position than the rest of the people.

I may not know much about politics, quite frankly I know almost nothing. but all I have seen out of the 4 past years is war. I agree with the war in Afghenistan, but theres just no reason for what he did in Iraq. He lied to the public, and sadly enough the public trusted him. Americans are dying in Iraq, and quite frankly I dont care what the Iraqian casualties are, as long as American die we are losing this war.

I always use this an excuse....... Imagine if it was your son, your father, your mother, even your best friend who had to lose their life, to protect a country that is sadly enough being run by a phycotic maniac that is probably in need of some serius attention. Of course I understand if you disagree with me, especially since were not really being touched by this war, I just hope that the U.S is one day attacked and people are truly massacred, so you can all understand how evil war is.......

to the sad person that started this: no one needs your spun, biased, propeganda bullshit. if you can't handle Bush being in office, WHO WON FAIR AND SQUARE by the people who voted for him (and don't go off on the electoral, he got the popular vote) then move to some other country. we don't need people like you here.

This is a very good point (the part about him having won fair and square)! As someone outside the US, it appears that the citizens of the US, for whatever reason, voted for the guy. You live in a democracy. Deal with it. Of course, the great thing about democracy is everyone can have a go. Run for office. Do better. I think many people could.

Well, I guess by the time you get the chance you might not want to. Ruling a smoking ruin probably doesn't have the same attraction.

Yeah, get out people with opinions that don't correspond exactly with my own, jerks.

Lol

to the sad person that started this: no one needs your spun, biased, propeganda bullshit. if you can't handle Bush being in office, WHO WON FAIR AND SQUARE by the people who voted for him (and don't go off on the electoral, he got the popular vote) then move to some other country. we don't need people like you here.

Oh, you need us. You sure as hell need us. Otherwise our nation would turn into a one-sided, single-minded frag fest and the world would certainly be lost. Likewise, we need you, because without two sides, there is no balance. Checks and balance, for that matter. If you can't see that yet, I implore you to read some more philosophy and political books.

Lol



Oh, you need us. You sure as hell need us. Otherwise our nation would turn into a one-sided, single-minded frag fest and the world would certainly be lost. Likewise, we need you, because without two sides, there is no balance. Checks and balance, for that matter. If you can't see that yet, I implore you to read some more philosophy and political books.

You dont even need to read a book bout that. Its common sense, Communism dosent work very well because most of the time the dictator becomes corrupted. The thing about Democracy and its checks and balances is that it dosent let a crazy corrupted bastard into power. And even if they do go into power, they can be checked by the other branches

You dont even need to read a book bout that. Its common sense, Communism dosent work very well because most of the time the dictator becomes corrupted. The thing about Democracy and its checks and balances is that it dosent let a crazy corrupted bastard into power. And even if they do go into power, they can be checked by the other branches

But what happens when the checks and balances all become of one mindset? Hmm? Who is there to guard the guards?

Unless of course crazy corrupted bastards have infiltrated all branches of government...uh oh.

You dont even need to read a book bout that. Its common sense, Communism dosent work very well because most of the time the dictator becomes corrupted. The thing about Democracy and its checks and balances is that it dosent let a crazy corrupted bastard into power. And even if they do go into power, they can be checked by the other branches

I don't know if anyone else finds this amusing. You know there are more forms of government, right? You know that people have been thinking about the way we rule each other for centuries? Well, I guess it's obvious; the US is in the way of a social experiment, after all.

If you're interested, investigate the emerging social systems of government in Bolivia (on a national scale) and in the factories in Venezuela after the crash there.

But what happens when the checks and balances all become of one mindset? Hmm? Who is there to guard the guards?

Well Look at the past, its happened before. Times were preety much Executive, Legaslative, and Judicial were all republicans or democrats. For some reason those times were completly chaotic in American History.

Its obvios that if everybody wants the same thing, and they control ALL power, well then that means their gonna get it. And since most of the times Republicans tend to go into business, the public just get completly screwed over.

Oh and I know that there are other goverments. Facists, Monarchy, Parliment, and of course many others. Its just that I see Democracy as the most effective when actually put to work

Bush=Christian - STOP SAYING THAT!!!!
Hand-picked bullshit.
Of course he is. Christian Coalition? Moral Majority?

Reasons not to become a Republican.

It is EASY to SAY you are a Christian. It is much harder to actually BE a Christian.

Consider this writing, by Maya Angelou, which was given me this day by a kind-hearted co-worker...

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'"
I'm whispering "I was lost,"
Now I'm found and forgiven.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I am weak
and need HIS strength to carry on.

Wehn I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.

When I say "I am Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow.


Now, does any of THAT actually sound like George W. Bush, the man full of nothing but braggadocio...the bellicose man who believes himself better than everyone else, and who looks down his nose at those who are different, or tries to use them as wedge issues to win elections?

Have ANY of you ever heard George W. Bush EVEN ONCE own up to making any mistakes? EVER?? Have you EVER heard him apologize, and ask for forgiveness from those whom he has wronged, in his thoughts, words, and deeds?

I know I NEVER HAVE!! No, George W. Bush does not, in my eyes, measure up to being a Christian...and don't tell me "Judge not, lest ye be judged," because I will come right back and tell you that even THE BIBLE say, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." And by his fruits, I know George W. Bush.

George W. Bush has succeeded in tearing apart and dividing this country. He has succeeded in minimalizing many minority groups, and trivializing their real pain and suffering to gain political edge. Take for example the whole gay marriage wedge issue. On one hand, he says it should be left to the States...yet, he STILL tries to get a Federal Constitutional Amendment?!?!? You can't have it both ways, Mr. Bush!! What is it??

And, in closing, I will share another writing with you, this by a respected member of the Maryland and DC bar, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, Alyson Meiselman....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transgender Legal Advisor
"We the people"
by Alyson Meiselman


"We the people" - the United States Constitution begins with these three words. These words precede "the people['s]" statement of shared commitment to improving their quality of life and equality of opportunity and to securing the blessings of liberty for present and future generations. In these three words, there is no mention of race, there is no mention of gender, nor is there any reference to religious affiliation, to ethnic background, to marital status or to sexual orientation. Simply and eloquently, the first words of the United StatesConstitution are words of inclusion. Yet, for many U.S. citizens these words carry no such promise. These citizens live and work and raise their families knowing that, truly, they are not part of "the people." These citizens are gays and lesbians, bi-sexuals, trangenders and intersexed. And, for that -- for being who they are --they are ridiculed, ostracized, despised, demonized and condemned. Their pleas for respect and for equal justice are answered by their government, by their institutions -- and by "We the people" -- with intolerance and bigotry, albeit impeccably adorned in sanctimonious rhetoric, sterile logic and hollow assurances.

The above paragraph was written by Justice James C. Nelson of the Montana Supreme Court, except for those words italicized, which are mine, and which I believe reflect the plight of many in our community, not just those of Montana's gay and lesbian community. [The above referenced case is: Carol Snetsinger, et al. v. Montana University System, et al., No. 03-238, Supreme Court of Montana, Decided: December 30, 2004.]

Why was there the need for such a statement to be written in 2004? Consider the following:

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]"

At least that was what our Founding Fathers (and, Mothers) thought at the creation of our democracy. President John Adams signed the above statement into law as part of the Treaty of Tripoli after the United States Senate unanimously ratified the document on June 7, 1797.

In the last week we have heard our present President of the United States effectively declare that the Oath of office, that he will again take this January, does not mean what it says, and, that he will continue to violate it by continuing to advance his "Christian" beliefs into the actions of his government. The President said he can't see anyone being President without a close "relationship" with God. The President implied that he has such a "relationship." [The psychological implications of such would render most of us 'normal' people in a special ward of our local hospital, especially if we are a danger to ourselves or others.]

How utterly sad and disappointing!

Before you, the readers of this column, initiate attacking me, think about who "we" are. For example, I, too, am a religious person. But, I'm not a Christian. I, too, am a citizen of the United States and patriotic. But, I am not a citizen or patriot that would impose my personal beliefs on the 290,000,000 other citizens of my country, especially my religious beliefs. I was 'brought up' in a country (the U.S., in D.C., and primarily raised in the Washington metropolitan Maryland area) that did not just merely allow but heralded freedom of religion, but that additionally had and understood the reasons for a clear line between church and state. That freedom and separation of church and state allowed me to practice my religious beliefs without sanction and to do so without the government, and in many situations, individuals, from discriminating against me based on my beliefs.

What about you? Would you want me to dictate to you what you believed? Would you want me to determine for you what is "morally" acceptable, based on my religious beliefs? Would you want me to govern you based on my religious beliefs that are not yours also?

(It occurred to me that if you answered "yes" to the last three questions, 'you' would likely prefer to live in a society like Iran, or some other country where such controls presently exist, so long as the controls agreed with your own set of beliefs. However, if you answered "yes" to the last three questions, 'you' would also be one to fight against such controls if they did not agree with your beliefs. I identify individuals who express such logic as "situational problematic hypocrites.")

The present struggle in the United States between the "faith-based" Right, and, those who believe, as I do, in personal freedom, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, is one, so fundamental to the basis of "the Great Experiment" [an historical reference to the United States] and the documents that were drawn as our structural foundation [the Constitution, as example], that the tampering we are presently witnessing should be viewed as a danger sign.

Certainly, without question, our Founding Fathers (and Mothers), who struggled so hard to free themselves from the tyranny of religious and political oppression in the Europe of the sixteen and seventeen hundreds (and before), would be shocked to see that their great, great, great, etc., grandchildren had fallen back into the clutch of religiously based political oppression. What price will we have to pay to restore our rights established so many years ago?

Political "capital" or not, the President should have enough common sense and control to keep his personal religiously based beliefs separate and apart from his role as leader of "We the people" and to persuade his party, in control of our national legislature, both houses of Congress, and many State legislatures, to resist the temptation to enshrine "Christian" beliefs into the national fabric of our society.

Europe learned this lesson the hard way. The E.U. is now more advanced than the U.S. Perhaps it is time for the United States to learn from the experience of other nations - a novel idea!


What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.

"By their own fruits ye shall know them." That is true. But have you looked at all of Bush's fruits? No. You've simply picked out the bad fruits and closed your eyes to the good.

"Though shall not judge" This is in the bible. What makes "By their own fruits ye shall know them" negate this part?

Do you know whats tearing apart and dividing this country? Everything and everyone. Bush can't control what the people do. It is the people tearing apart this nation, not him.

I wouldn't care if you did it based on your religious beliefs. It's who you are and it's probably what you think is best for the nation if you did so.

Bush does this because he thinks it's best for the Nation.

Also remember that Bush does not have the final say. That's what checks and balance is for.

Do tell me how Europe is more advanced than the US? Advanced the idea that they keep religion seperate? Have you seen what the morality is like in Europe?

How do you know he hasn't apologized to anyone? Because you havn't read anything in the news?

I'm not attacking you. I'm merely presenting another view on things.

I personally do not think that keeping Saddam in power would have done anyone any good. Appeasement does not work. The evil dictators have this ego thing, which makes them think that they are all powerful, and the less and less other nations do to stop them the crazier they become.

Think about it...is the opinion of the United States all that different from the way it was before the Second World War? Many Americans are isolationist (at least those on the left), and few propose containment (those on the right). And what good did appeasement and isolation do? The England and France did not want to fight another war with Germany, so they let Hitler do whatever the heck he wanted. He wasn't bothering them, right?

Ultimately, rather than risking a few soldiers to stop Germany upfront, the nations delayed and lost millions.

So ultimately, I suppose the question I'm asking is this: Would you prefer that the nations of the world stay idle and let the dictators amass power as long as they don't bother you for the time being, then have to fight them when they are powerful, or deal with them upfront and make sure that situation is never a thought?

I personally do not think that keeping Saddam in power would have done anyone any good. Appeasement does not work. The evil dictators have this ego thing, which makes them think that they are all powerful, and the less and less other nations do to stop them the crazier they become.

Think about it...is the opinion of the United States all that different from the way it was before the Second World War? Many Americans are isolationist (at least those on the left), and few propose containment (those on the right). And what good did appeasement and isolation do? The England and France did not want to fight another war with Germany, so they let Hitler do whatever the heck he wanted. He wasn't bothering them, right?

Ultimately, rather than risking a few soldiers to stop Germany upfront, the nations delayed and lost millions.

So ultimately, I suppose the question I'm asking is this: Would you prefer that the nations of the world stay idle and let the dictators amass power as long as they don't bother you for the time being, then have to fight them when they are powerful, or deal with them upfront and make sure that situation is never a thought?


You raise a good point; there is quite a bit of logic in nipping the problem in the bud.

Of course, trying to take supreme power would almost make a pariah out of you, as well as make other countries not think highly of you. Yes, the dictator would be powerful, but they would have to answer to a collective, instead of just one hot-shot.

It's all about ratios and how the balance of power equals out the fighting. Personally, I'd wait until I have a really good reason to do something, share those reasons why with some of my colleages, and then execute the action. Then there would be all around support and a good chance of a teamwork-quality job.

to the sad person that started this: no one needs your spun, biased, propeganda bullshit. if you can't handle Bush being in office, WHO WON FAIR AND SQUARE by the people who voted for him (and don't go off on the electoral, he got the popular vote) then move to some other country. we don't need people like you here.
Freedom of speech is only allowable for certain classes of US citizens?

Unless of course crazy corrupted bastards have infiltrated all branches of government...uh oh.
Welcome to the real world.
In it, I hope you're not Republican ot Democrat.

Alternatively we could be in a major depression with even more terrorist attacks.
Good, then maybe some of the idiots will be rooted out of the gene pool. Not to mention it would create a situation ripe for revolution.

Many Americans are isolationist (at least those on the left), and few propose containment (those on the right). And what good did appeasement and isolation do?
And what good did containment do? Two quagmires? Two situations where soldiers were sent out in a half-assedly planned campaign? Two situations where soldiers were sent to die for nothing except the ego of a ruling power? Hmm, kind of reminiscent of something else we know... :headbang:

to the sad person that started this: no one needs your spun, biased, propeganda bullshit. if you can't handle Bush being in office, WHO WON FAIR AND SQUARE by the people who voted for him (and don't go off on the electoral, he got the popular vote) then move to some other country. we don't need people like you here.

May I please throw your words right back in your face the next time someone YOU don't fucking like gets elected?

Goddamn it, dissent is a CHERISHED AMERICAN RIGHT and I DAMN WELL ain't gonna give it up just because YOU don't fucking want to hear it!!

Too goddamn bad...as long as the constitution still exists (and with Bush around, that's questionable) I have a fucking RIGHT to say what I did...and I DAMN WELL am going to EXERCISE my rights, and if you don't like it, you can kiss my ass.

What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.

"By their own fruits ye shall know them." That is true. But have you looked at all of Bush's fruits? No. You've simply picked out the bad fruits and closed your eyes to the good.

"Though shall not judge" This is in the bible. What makes "By their own fruits ye shall know them" negate this part?

Do you know whats tearing apart and dividing this country? Everything and everyone. Bush can't control what the people do. It is the people tearing apart this nation, not him.

I wouldn't care if you did it based on your religious beliefs. It's who you are and it's probably what you think is best for the nation if you did so.

Bush does this because he thinks it's best for the Nation.

Also remember that Bush does not have the final say. That's what checks and balance is for.

Do tell me how Europe is more advanced than the US? Advanced the idea that they keep religion seperate? Have you seen what the morality is like in Europe?

How do you know he hasn't apologized to anyone? Because you havn't read anything in the news?

I'm not attacking you. I'm merely presenting another view on things.

I'm not closing my eyes to the good fruits...THEWRE FUCKING AREN'T ANY GOOD FRUITS!!!
The economy is in the fucking tank, unemployment is at it's highest in over a decade, workers rights are being scaled back, workers are getting screwed over and shafted...and forced to work ever longer and harder hours just to fucking make ends meet...yeah, REAL FAMILY FUCKING VALUES, yes siree-bob!!

No, Bush does what he does because it's best for his goddam ego, and it's best for his fucking oil cronies and buddies. NOT because it is best for the nation. If he honestly DID have the best interest of the nation at heart, I'd feel differently. He may SAY he has the best interests of the nation at heart, but his ACTIONS say something completely different!!

He's got us in a fucking quagmire in the Middle East, another goddamn Vietnam, and people are getting KILLED and spilling REAL BLOOD all to enrich his oil buddies!!

And he takes the REAL PAIN AND SUFFERING of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans, and uses it as a political wedge!! Do you KNOW the pain we GLBT people feel? Do you KNOW what we suffer??

NO!!

We give everything to this country, just like good little citizens, we work, we pay our taxes, we follow the laws...and YET...when we ask the government to protect us from unfair discrimination...when we ask them to values OUR families as much as other families...when we ask the government to value OUR FUCKING LIVES as much as the lives on non-GLBT Americans, we do not get adequate representation!! We put in 100 percent, like everyone else...but we only get, maybe 50 percent back out...while watching our fellow countrymen/women get 100 percent back out...and these same Hundred-Percenters are lining up to vote to insure WE never GET more than the 50 percent we get now, and, in fact, if they had THIER way about it, we wouldn't even get THAT much!! But bet your ASS they'd still expect us to fork over all the goddam taxes!!

200 years ago, a bunch of pissed-off people dumped a barge full of tea into the fucking harbor over taxation without representation!! Yet, this is PRECISELY where GLBT Americans now find themselves...taxed, but not represented!

And WHAT cheakcs and balances?? THAT only works when the opposition party is in a mjority in at least ONE area of the government. Right now, the US Governemtn is COMPLETELY dominated by the fucking Right Wing!

Europe is far more compassionate and civilised towards the "less desireable" elements of it's society, and THAT is what makes Europe better than America! And I am an American saying this...albeit, yes, I am a transgender American...in other words...one who puts in 100 percent, and is lucky to get 50 percent back from my government!

Now, tell me...would YOU be pissed?? Sorry, but I feel I have a right to be pissed, and the whole fucking mess I BLAME ON BUSH!!!

braggodocio is my official word of the day

That said. I agree with the article almost completly. And yes, I am a practicing christian.

Do you know whats tearing apart and dividing this country? Everything and everyone. Bush can't control what the people do. It is the people tearing apart this nation, not him.
Great leaders have the ability to unite a nation? Bush's policies are definitely divisionary.


Bush does this because he thinks it's best for the Nation.
Unnecessary war with Iraq (plus monetary and human costs) is best for the US?

Also remember that Bush does not have the final say. That's what checks and balance is for.
What checks and balances? The Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate.

Do tell me how Europe is more advanced than the US? Advanced the idea that they keep religion seperate? Have you seen what the morality is like in Europe?
What is morality like in Europe? Try this article on for size:

U.S. Leads in Sexually Transmitted Disease Rate: three times higher (http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Health/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=8c98ce765f3d46bdb8aa2c8424cba208&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc)

How do you know he hasn't apologized to anyone? Because you havn't read anything in the news?
Bush found it very difficult to apologize for the abuse at Abu Gharib. It was delayed and somewhat forced by public opinion?

BTW.....
I'm not attacking you. I'm merely presenting another view on things.