O'Dannyboy

I don't agree with the notion that it is not the governments responsibility to care for its poor. Forgive me, but that is what I am hearing. The way I am hearing it, you folks are justifying North Koreas misapropriation of its resources. Since the governments of the world bear no responsibility to provide for its poor, they are all free to spend any perceived surplusses on usefull things like nuclear or chemical weapons, something the world can seemingly never have enough of. From what I have seen and heard, North Koreas government is using practically all of its aid from other nations to support its military and leaving its citizens to fend for themselves. At this point, its pretty much agreed, that the only use North Korea has for nuclear technology is to blackmail its neighbors, and other nations, into providing concessions and aid to them in exchange for empty promisses. One has to wonder if all the gift packages being made to Iran is sending the proper message to the other rogue nations in the world. I do think that the governments of the word do have a resposibility to its citizens to foster opportunity for all of their citizens and to strive to maintain social balance instead of rifts. Without question there will always be the haves and the have-nots, but I don't think the government should sit idly by as the gap continues to increase. Even in the poorest nations in the world, the aristocrats live in the lap of luxury while their citizens are left to fight for the scraps. I don't agree with this and I am not about to excuse the governments from the responsibiliy in this. Every government is responsible for the well being of ALL of its citizens, if that government is indeed representative of its people.

I bet you would have laughed if that congressman was a democrat. Forcing religion down people's throats in violation of our traditional govt laws is not morality it's politicial pandering. It's also extremely dangerous but I somehow suspect you won't understand why. The laws our founding fathers passed kept church and state separate; they reflected neutrality toward religion. Yes they had a healthy respect for God but keep in mind a healthy respect for God doesn't necessarily equate to a healthy respect toward religion. Many of our founding fathers actually expressed outright disdain for Chrisitianity and this IS refected in many of their writings. We should be grateful that they rose above their disdain and maintained a neutral position so that those who do embace Christianity are not hindered. Now back to the video; that republican congressman demonstrated that he didn't have a clue what the 10 commandments were and yet he was sponsoring a bill to put them in judicial buildings. It's obvious he was doing that for political reasons and not because he thought we'd lose some sense of direction without them as he said on the video (how could he lose some sense of direction when he didn't even know what they were). As for the building part evidently you didn't get it at all. What better building could a person put the 10 commandments in? Answer: Why a CHURCH building of course! Noone is forcing religion down anyones throat. I suppose if someone offered to give you a bible you would view it as trying to force it down your throat. This is only a guess, but you aren't a Christian are you? I think, if you were, you would understand why we would be concerned to see our government so willing to throw out the core beliefs upon which this nation was founded. Our founding fathers did not write the laws you refer to, to keep church and state separate, but to protect religion from the influence of the secular powers (state). The laws were not meant to keep our government free of fundamental principles like honor, justice or truth, but to protect the people from the government diminishing religious influence. I, unlike some, believe that Christianity is the moral foundation of our nation. When we begin to remove it and its influence from government, we remove morality itself from government. The "many" forefathers you speak of were not in the majority and, as you said, their disdain managed to become visible in their writtings regardless. You are right, in that, the congressmans lack of knowlege of the ten commandments indicates that his motives are more than likely politically motivated. Nonetheless, I still believe in what he was trying to achieve, whether or not he did. I do not believe the best place for the ten commandments is the church, as you allude. Thats like saying, the best place for a woman is in the kitchen. Originally thats were women were normally found and they seemed to have a knack for the workings of a kitchen. Just because you would be able to find the ten commandments rather easily in a church does not mean thats the ONLY place they should be displayed. The way I see it is the ten commandments are both TRUE and WISE. The primary argument from people like yourself is that, since the ten commandments come from "religion", they, for some reason, do not belong in a government building. Yes, lets take " you shouldn't steal, or "you shouldn't kill", or "you shouldn't lie" and the other fundamental principles (laws) right out of our government since they have outlived their usefullness. Lets fool ourselves into thinking that all men are born good and morality is somehow built into our genetic code, and see where that gets us 50 years from now. Your disdain for religion is even more aparant than that of the forefathers whose writing you so happily use to justify your own position.

I didn't find anything about the video funny except in inserting of laughing into the background. The congressman is right that our government buildings and courthouses are two places that NEED to have the ten commandments posted inside them. Our leaders, at the beginning, had a healthy respect for God and it was reflected in the laws they passed and the documents they wrote. I don't think there are many of us now that wouldn't wish our leaders would emulate some of our founding fathers. It should prove interesting to watch the democrats trying to fake religion when they have put so much effort into pushing it out of the political sphere. The difference I see here is between those that diferenciate between morality and faith. Some of us think they are directly related, while others (democrats) don't.

Thank you for this post. I thought I was alone in this opinion. Governments should not be in the catering business. Lack of food isn't the problem, lack of freedom and lack of capitalism is. I don't think there is a lack of capitolism here in the U.S. In a way, I think capitolism needs to be checked to some degree. If it weren't for the mega-corporations, most companies wouldn't be trying to justify keeping wages down just to fund some form of respectable growth. Alcoholism and drug addiction should be considered worthy of jail terms long enough to break th chain if these people are unwilling to seek help. If dealing and posessing drugs is illegal then so should using them. It's like prostitution. If they can arrest the "Johns" for paying for sex, then they should arrest drug users/addicts for uncontrolled use of controlled substances. I don't think we should turn a blind eye to their situations simply because the people didn't have the will to help themselves. If you don't think we should be giving these people hand outs in the form of welfare our housing, then we should spend the money to force them to give up the activities that are creating their problems. I think society has some responsibility in providing the underprivilaged with the means to overcome their situations, drugs, alcohol or whatever.

I didn't say they were starving or had even starved, sure there are plenty of soup kitchens across the U.S. and all of them funded by charity, not government funds. Understandably many of the homeless people I speak of are there as a result of their own doing, but there are many who are not. Are we to assume that every homeless disabled vet is homeless because he was a drunkard? Our government seems to spend more money on prisoner rehabilitation than it does for our homeless. The point is that our government simply does not gove the homeless problem the attention, or funding, that it deserves. Instead we have politicians sneaking ammendments into bills for 300 million dollar bridges for settlements with populations of 250 people in the middle of nowhere.

You may want to post this in a thread in the general section. You will get very few replies in the current news section. Perhaps you should pray for guidance as well as intervention. May I suggest that you have your pastor issue the prayer request durring a service also.

What are your thoughts on Mardi Gras? Every conceivable sin is flaunted in that celebration. Girls lift up their shirts to show off their breasts. Men pull down their pants to show what they have. People walk around drunk & with more alcohol in their hands, etc, etc., etc.... The Mardi Gras celebration was not created as a venue for debauchery even though it has become rampant and accepted, by some, as part of it. The purpose of "Gay Pride" parades is to endorse, if not promote, the homosexual lifestyle. As if the sin of homosexuality were not grievous enough, they have pride in it. Of all sins God hates pride the most. I will not assume to speak for the rest of Christiandom, but my only problem with homosexuals their demanding social equality and acceptance. By this I am speaking of Gay marriage. Marriage is a sacred covenant between God, a man and a woman. These days, society views marriage as little more than a legal contract. This has caused some to believe, falsely, that a "marriage" between two people of the same sex would be no different. While I would not begrudge homosexual "couples" some of the "legal" rights that have been afforded married couples, I am strongly against allowing same sex "marriages". That being said, I would not oppose state sanctioned partnerships (unions) as long as they were not equated to a marriage. Many Christians disagree with me on this, but this is the only fair and acceptable solution I can see to this. Getting to the point, most Christians, as I see it, have no beef with homosexuals except that homosexuals insist on flaunting their lifestyle. One thing we as Christians cannot afford to do is allow society to think that we condone such behavior. In our efforts to prevent society from getting the idea that we do, some have taken it a bit personal. Believe it or not, there are some homosexuals that are actively working to promote homosexuality among the youth of our nation. There have even been instances where childrens books that talk of princes falling in love with other princes have been read to school children. Events like this are often viewed as attacks and only serve to anger those whose acceptance they are seeking to win. The gay community speaks conveniently of tolerance and then insist on being in the public eye. The thing about tolerance is that those things people learn to tolerate are not usually optional. They don't have a choice in the matter. Many people learn to tolerate migraines and others tolerate other painfull conditions. I can tolerate homosexuality, but I do not consider it to be normal or acceptable and do no wish to see society do so either.

It apears that even in Iran there are those who have reservations about their leaderships intentions. While they all agree, as does much of the world, that nuclear ENERGY is their right, many do not believe they need or even want nuclear weapons.

The insurgents need to get a clue. As long as they are creating problems, they create a need for U.S. troops to remain. It's as simple as that. The insurgets are creating their own problems. It's alot like poison ivy. If you are patient and disciplined, it will go away quickly, but if you continue to scratch it will only spread and itch more. They need to pretend the U.S. troops are not their, end eventually they will go away. Every time they bomb something or kill someone they only perpetuate their own problems.

Good. Let them make their profits off some other people. The last thing I wan't to do is help a middle easterner get MORE wealthy.

I agree. The very idea that they would even develope nucluear technology despite a famine shows how he realy views the people of his country. In a way it's like our own government. They persist in spending billions of dollars a year on shuttle missions and other pie in the sky projects while tens of thousdands of our citizens, if not more, remain homeless and hungry. While I think most of us would agree that we must invest a certain percentage of our monies toward advancement and developement we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to those in our nation that are homeless and hungry. Our government needs to become more efficient in its spending, plain and simple.

Now thats funny!

As far as I am concerned, burning the flag is an act of treason. Burning the flag is not "speach" and therefore does not fall under freedom of speach. I don't see why some people feel the need to blur or dilute the meaning of our constitution. To say flag burning is covered under freedom of speach is just like saying that telling our national security secrets to other nations should also be covered as well. Anyone that lives in this nation, yet harbors enough contempt for it to burn its national flag, should be banished/evicted/deported or imprisoned, never to return. I have a great deal of contempt for our government, but I would not stoop so low as to burn the flag, because the flag does not represent our government alone, but our people and history. To burn OUR FLAG, not our governments, is a crime against every American that has shed his or her blood to defend this country and its way of life. If you were to burn the flag of any other country, you would be attacking/insulting its people even though you may have done so to protest its leaders, the result is the same.. I think we, as americans, have had to endure this more than any other nation, thanks to our leaders, and we should not be giving our citizens free license to do so disguised as free speach. Simply put, talking about burning an american flag is covered under freedom of speach, to burn the flag is an ACT and should be considered treason or espionage. Our people need to be reminded that our national flag is not our governments symbol, but the peoples legacy and it represents, more than any other nations flag, the trials and tribulations our forefathers went through to create this great nation. There is one star for every state and thirteen stripes representing the original thirteen colonies. Of all the nations of the world there is no other flag like it just as there is no nation like ours. To burn our flag is to spit in the face of every American. I don't think even those who wrote the costitution would have stood idly by and allowed someone to burn our flag and neither should we.

The election season we will all have to very diligent in researching the voting record of all those running for office. The lines have been very blurred lately and to claim republican or conservative should no longer be enough. There are many elected officials, like our president, that have, as I call it, "crawfished" and voted the opposite of their constuency and have even protested certain investigations by switching their votes at the last minute, to stir things up. We now need to look harder at the loyalty and character of those we are electing. There are too many platforms for the candidates to harp on for us to trust the word of any of them. We need our leaders to do more than talk the talk, they need to walk the walk.

It seem interesting to me that so many places that are majorly liberal have seen floods recently. Interestingly enough, Orleans Parish, here in Louisiana, is the states most liberal and played a huge roll in electing Catherine Blanco (our democratic governor). I am not sure about the political alignments of the other places hit by Katrina and Rita, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too leaned to the left. Just one of those things that makes ya go "hmmmmm".

Easy to blame the victims of Israeki aggression isn't it? Forget the fact that they habe been driven from most of their land and now live in the ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank. Under continual Israeli military and economic attack. Compare the thousandsr of Palestinians held by the Israeli government to this one Israeli fighter held by a non-government group of Palestinian fighters. At least for once this was a military attack on a military target. I simply don't understand how it is that you haven't been banned for such lies Amor. Israeli aggression? Israel pulls out and returns Gaza to the Palestinians and this is the thanks they get? Rockets being fired at settlements and kidnapping and KILLING Israeli soldiers? Once again, this land was never the palestinians. Have you not yet familiarised yourself with the Bible? This land was promised to Israel through the blood covenant with Abraham, and so too to the seed of Isaac and Jacob. The Jews owned that land long before it was called Palestine and even while it was considered Roman territory, it was inhabited by the Jews. The fact that the Jews were scattered to the four winds does NOT dimminish nor cancel out Gods' covenant with them. The proof of this is the very FACT that they were returned to the land just as the prophets foretold. In spite of all the efforts by all the different empires and regimes to destroy the Jews, they still thrive by the grace of God. After the many times this has been explained to you, you still defend the Palestinians. What I find just as disturbing as your defense of palestinian terrorism, is that the moderators have allowed you to persist in your attacks on Israel and their struggle to exist as a nation. If, after the length of time that you have been at worthy boards, you have not taken the time to familiarise yourself with Israels side of the story, I don't see where your being here is doing anything to edify or lift up Gods children. Do us a favor and either, try to understand Israels side of the story, or take your anti-semitism to another forum.

Well DUH! I don't think Israel is prepared to release 1000 Palestinian prisoners to secure the safe return of a single soldier. If Israel gave in to the demands of these terrorists, there would be a rash of kidnappings on top of the endless vollies of Kasam rockets into Israeli villiages. While I commend the Israeli leadership for arresting the Hamas deligates, I have to agree that destroying the power plant was excessive, all things considered.

We need to make a list/thread of known Israeli made products. So far the only products I know of are the dead sea beauty products.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/28/dobson.ga...iage/index.html After reading this article I was incline to write in to show my appreciation for CNN showing an interest in what the public actually thinks, however I am at work and don't really have the time to do so. Please help me and share with CNN what you thought of this editorial by clicking the link at the bottom of the editorial piece. Perhaps if CNN new how many people they were putting off by choosing a side rather than sticking to the news, they might reconsider promoting the left and their agenda.

Well, I have to agree that the death of Saddam early on would have simplified things. As it is, his trial will last a very long time and we will have to hear from or about him untill his death it seems. We do, however, have to consider what difficulties his "martyrdom" might have caused. It is probably best that he is forced to go out with a wimper rather than "blazing glory" as we call it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/27/...l.ap/index.html It's all smoke a mirrors in my oppinion. If they truly wanted a peaceful resolution it wouldn't have taken sanctions and , as a result, economic crisis, to get them to say so.

I agree with this article. It's time the world community stop pressuring Israel to make all the concessions and require the Palestinians to show they honestly want the conflict to end. It's time the other Arab nations stop blaming Israel for the confict when they are all guilty of perpetuating it through their financial and verbal support. If these nations would stop funding this welfare state then perhaps they will be forced to find more productive things to do, things that generate income rather than hatred.

They couldn't have chosen a worse time to try and pass this bill. Perhaps we can get a majority in the senate and then try and pass it again. Its chances in the senate do not look very good. I so wish to see this constitutional ammendment go through.

Exactly. Unemployment numbers and the number of jobs being created are not a true measure of poverty and the economy. While the economy seems strong we are still up to out ears in debt as a nation and our manufacturing sector continues to shrink while our govenment debates how to make paying less than minum wage legal (by importing cheap labor). While I am glad you are doing better ,apothanein kerdos, the simple truth is that all the postive spin they put on the economy is a form of positive reinforcement and not the truth. They tell us what we want to hear to bolster consumer confidence. The economy may be doing better than it has, but its far from it should be as we continue to fall behind in the world markets. The one indicator that seem to best represent the strength of our economy is the strength of the dollar, and its really not doing well from what I hear.

Ok that I can understand. Although every religion has their own type of marriage. Should we consider anything that isn't a standard judeo-christian marriage a civil union? You seem to think of marriage as a "legal" institution and not a holy convenant. I believe that God considers a man and a woman married even though their vows are made to a different God. Either way, a marriage is much more than a legal contract and has always been between a man and a woman, no matter what the religion. The question of how many wives a man may have differs, but the fact remains that they were women. World wide? Have you been outside the U.S. much? Most of the entire outside world was laughing at us when we were in an uproar over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. It's common for a married man to have a mistress in most parts of Europe. Then in the arab nations marriage is between a man and as many women as he can afford. I believe in India they have the same sort of system. Plus in those countries don't they usually have arranged marriages? You have a point. That only makes it all the more important that we effort ourselves to preserve the sanctity of marriage as a holy institution. We can hardly measure ourselves against other nations, especially those nations that are not even tolerant of Christians. And then there's this from Wikipedia-