Doc...
I'll start with two things. First, thank you for the insightful reply. I respect your opinions and believe you do present a valid arguement all the way through. Second, this whole conversation is probably outside the technical bounds of discussing news/talk radio, but I hope the moderator of this board (it ain't me) will tolerate it long enough for some talk show hosts to read it - because I believe these are important points we're making which could be beneficial to their show content.
Now, lets pick up where you left off:
>
> I will make a rhetorical comment....Fundamentalist
> Christians and other religions have had more opportunity to
> thrive until the point where they now have developed their
> own political movement...the changes in beliefs on moral
> issue...I mean look at the size of these churches...the
> contributions...and incredible amounts of money spent...and
> the increasing influence...
I presume you are referring to the various 'Protestant' denominations such as the Southern Baptists, Methodists, et al.. You make a great point with respect to church size. I've been to two such large congregations - we have Belleview Baptist here in Memphis, which I've visited, and back in the 80s I was a member of a big one in Norfolk VA... both churches had and have a TV 'ministry' and a monstrous budget. In Norfolk, the pastor lived in a home worth half a million dollars!!! Which I THOUGHT WAS A SIN!! But they justify it saying God's servant shouldn't be poor... whatever. I'm not sure there's much morality in that, nor do I think churches should exert so much influence over the City council and local/regional politics as to make law just because much of a the local politicians constituents belong to a certain denomination or church. Again, you make a great point here which I'm inclined to agree with.
> yet they claim to be an abused bunch....
In many instances, there is a feeling of persecution - it's a feeling that many American Christians have that there's an 'us vs. them' atmosphere. Take, for example, the many legal cases that have emerged in recent years with respect to the bible in public schools. It would be one thing if ALL religion were completely banished from schools, but that's not so. There are so many cases out there of school systems allowing 'study' of the Koran, Hinduism, Buddism, etc... but when someone wants to start a Bible study, even if it's after school hours and only with a closed group not publicizing it, they get slapped down. Then, there are the cases of prayers before football games being stopped... Nativity scenes at the town hall removed by court order (I'm surprised, in fact, that the ACLU hasn't sued to get the name of the holiday on December 25th changed to "Winter Celebration" in place of "Christmas", its gotten so bad). In fact everything that many of us just simply took for granted being eliminated simply because one person got a wild hair up his... you know. Look at this rediculous national discussion of removing the ten commandments from the courts, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Tell me, what harm do the commandments do? and why is it wrong to say 'Under God' in the Pledge? After all, it doesn't say Jesus, so why cant members of other faiths just substitute their own deity?
This is why many, if not most Christians in this country feel threatened.
Tell me, do believe in the arguement that our founding fathers intended America to be a land protected for freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion?
I'm at this point not siding with one or the other, just posing questions that we as a nation are going to have to answer if we're to get by this.
its a
> travesty how people are catering to this belief in the
> radio/television/print media....they have a right to their
> beliefs but they do not have a right to push it on us by
> pressuring the government...to do their bidding...but now we
> have a president and leaders in the GOP who will do their
> bidding and look how it divides....and causes so much
> problem
I don't see it that way. I see this as righting a wrong done to us by 30 years of Democratic control until Reagan put a stop to much of the BS. Then it started again in ernest when Clinton took office, and the left hasn't stopped - now they use the liberals in our courts to change things because they can't ramrod legislation down American's throats.
....religion is a bad thing .....it causes people to
> do bad things...just my humble opinion.
I believe the excesses of religion are a bad thing. Wars are fought over religion - the current one is exactly that and a prime example.
...its gotten to the
> point where they are so abused they have American
> "soul-searching" the separation of church and state....and
> look at all the christian media on television and
> radio..there are hundreds of religious stations where all
> are free to listen...
I think that's a panicked reaction. I'm a Christian and I don't think our society should be ruled by Christian Biblical principles. Yes, the Christian media does, but nobody seriously thinks that Christian radio & TV are anything other than the voice of that particular religion do they? People have remote controls to change the channel. They have hundreds of them, it ain't like people are FORCED to believe a certain way.
America isn't 'soul-searching'. Nobody in their right mind would really believe we should abandon the separation of church and state, and I'll agree with you that there should not be a marriage of God and Washington. However, the institutions that have traditionally been in place have *NOT* infringed upon the rights of any citizen to believe or not believe in any particular religion. And, the Christians have one really good point. If the founding fathers so desperately wanted American government to be completely free of religious influence, why then did they call upon God so many times in the original documents? Why does our currency say "In God We Trust"? Why was American law based upon the moral principles rooted in biblical philosophy?
Beyond that, I'll say this. If anyone thinks that by completely removing the influency of Christianity from our government and all public places that we'll finally be rid of the problem surrounding religious furvor and all it's evils, remember that when you take one thing out, another takes it's place. A sort of national atheism might exist for a time, but eventually some religion will take it's place... it can't be suppressed forever. Lennin tried it in the earliest days of the Bolshevic revolusion in Russia... but in the end that was yet another catalyst for the destruction of the USSR. One thing the people wanted as much as basic freedoms was the freedom to worship. So... if Christianity is removed - what other religion might at some point take it's place? Something worse, like Islam, perhaps. I digress heavilly here but I hope I've made a valid point.
> They cite the crime, drug & alcohol
> > problems as prime example of what's gotten much worse in
> > this country since the hippie generation of the 60s. I'm
> > not saying I wholehartedly endorse their views, but I do
> > understand them and it seems logical to me.
>
> It doesn't in my book....another thought I remember was an
> interesting CNN Presents that did some research into the
> rise of the Fundalmentalist Christians influence in
> society....a little girl was asked if any one who wasnt just
> like her ...a fundamentalist Christian....was heaven
> possible for other good people but in other religions....of
> course the answer was no.... and her parents were proud of
> her saying that the Bible trumped US Laws....this is not the
> direction of holding society together...its divisive and so
> many religions do it....a shame...
You're right, and I can't argue except to make the point that if citizens of a particular faith believe such things, they have that right in this country, as well they should. That example, however, doesn't work when you place it in context of that attitude being in place at the inner workings of our government. So long as government does not hold such views, there is no problem. And you're right, nearly all religion believes their version of faith is the only one that matters. It's the nature of the beast and will never change. Remember, the point here, is we can not legislate morality. But we shouldn't legislate atheism, either.
>
> > Why is Abortion - MURDER, my friend, by any other name,
> > looked at as simply a choice
>
> I think its a serious choice....the issue of it being murder
> of whatever you believe is simply one's belief or strong
> opinion. I hope no one I love or know has to have a reason
> to seek abortion. Clinton had it right....safe, legal, and
> rare...polls in all right/left media show that Americans by
> a large margin don't want to see Abortion (Roe v. Wade)
> overturned....but yet...christians and those who support
> their beliefs and I guess people like yourself if you think
> its murder get to tell us that we are wrong and that it has
> to be your way.
Abortion is probably the single most devisive and important domestic issue in America. Let me try to explain my position and why I believe as I do:
I'd like to cite this as an example because it's happened so many times I've lost count. A woman goes into an abortion clinic for whatever reason. It's legal. She takes care of business, medically, morally or whatever. She will get financial assistance, if needed, and she'll be offered councelling. By itself, that isn't a bad thing at all. Many would argue that THAT is good socialism. But... across town, a 16 year old girl gives birth. She freaks out and two hours after the baby is born, she puts a bag over it's head and throws it in a dumpster... then cries for months that she did it. This girl is arrested, convicted of murder, and then on top of her loss, she goes to jail till she's well past childbearing years and is branded with a felony. Her life, that of her child's, her family's and all who were close to her is forever ruined. And, because of our legal system, the woman who chose abortion could have been this girl only a few hours earlier (under certain circumstances). So let me present this arguement: If abortion is legal, then shouldn't a woman who does a hideous act out of desperation as in the case I described be treated with mercy, and offered the same councelling and support as the one who made the choice BEFORE birth to terminate? What's wrong with this picture? Or am I totally in left field in this.
>
> The right has been able to demonize the issue of late-term
> abortion and conflate it with what is considered to be
> regular abortion. But no doctor can just do a late-term (its
> not partial-birth as the right says) without some
> ramifications...the amount of them that are done are almost
> non-existant....a woman should have the privacy with advise
> or guidance from a doctor on what decision she will make
> about her body....the government and others should not be
> involved .....ever...it implies a right of privacy and
> lesser government...libertarians should support privacy as a
> key civil liberty...
Privacy IS a key civil liberty. But as the left is championing Abortion as the prime privacy issue, they are ignoring a far more important one with regard to the Patriot Act. If Democrats want to score BIG points with the American public, they should go after the Bush administration for imposing this totalitarian concept of citizens ratting out their fellow citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. Its wrong, it's unAmerican and the GOP should be called to account for it.
> Even Democrats were opposed
> > to it prior to Roe v Wade, its just that the party
> endorsed
> > it wholehartedly because of the big money thrown at it by
> > the abortion industry reps, who stood to gain enormously
> > both in legal stature and profitability by it's
> legalization
> > in '73.
>
> Thats a stretch....if we were going to argue that one..i
> think you would have to prove it..because there isn't an
> abortion "industry" that i know of....thats a big stretch in
> the wrong direction my friend....and its not right to do
> that...
>
I believe there is and I also believe I have ample proof of it, however it literally would take far too much space than we can devote to it here. However, in the interest of fairness so I'm not ducking the issue, you may email me at my registered address and I'll be happy to discuss this further with you.
> It's not and never was, politically, about right or
> > wrong, it's always about the money. Our politicians, just
>
> > like our program directors, have ALWAYS been bought and
> paid
> > for. C'mon, Doc, even you know that.
>
> I think there are many (Tom Delay is best representative of
> this as of late.) but not every politican is looking at
> their pockets....but there are a lot who do..and certainly
> not taking "abortion" money...left or right...
I shouldn't have said or implied EVERYONE. That's not fair, but there is a good number that do, on both sides of the political aisle.
>
> > Flat out lie! That's what they say now, but when they get
>
> > in power they turn like a rabid dog and bloat the
> government
> > with pork, staff it with relatives and friends, and jack
> up
> > our taxes. Liberals have been proven to NOT be
> trustworthy
> > in any respect!
>
> Bill Clinton did have an effect here....he had put good
> fiscally thinking people in his administration...Rubin,
> Reich are small government democrats....Henry Waxman, Rahm
> Emanuel, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Chuck Shumer are some who
> i think follow the idea of reducing the size of government.
I'll give you credit for all except Shumer.
>
>
> I also find it hilarious that over the past 20+
> years....Reagan created a huge deficit and had to raise
> taxes....yes Reagan did raise taxes significantly after his
> intital tax cut....Bush in his term created the largest
> deficit ever ..over 290 billion...then Clinton came in with
> Rubin...listened to Greenspan...and put out a fiscal policy
> to reduce this debt as well as create a surplus...yes he
> raised taxes in 93 but it had key impact in helping us
> recover to gain over 20 million jobs...and a 5.6 trillion
> dollar surplus.... and now we have Bush II, curley's
> gold...LOL...the president who seems to be living Grover
> Norquist's best dreams of destroying government by making it
> unable to function ..by putting us in so much debt and
> looking to add so much more...and you say you cant trust
> Liberals....thats a joke my friend...
And for that, not only do I agree wholehartedly with you, but that's my oral and written beef with the GOP since 1980. It's been far worse, in fact, since Bush 1 took office than ever before. Clinton? On paper it looked like he was paying down the debt, but actually that was a farce. He simply moved the deficit into other areas not counted in the gross domestic product, trade & budget deficit, etc... but the debt was still there, spending was way out of control even under Clinton... but it LOOKED good. His administration simply had better liars.
> > Yes, healthcare... should have been left alone. Before
> Dan
> > Rather and his damned investigative reports telling
> > Americans that their family doctor was double-billing Blue
>
> > Cross and Medicare, EVERYONE had a family plan, damn near
> > everyone was covered for almost everything. And it was
> > cheap.
>
> You blame Dan Rather over the actions of unscrupulous
> medical corporations and even more evil drug companies....?
> but your description was correct in some ways..
>
>
> So why did they screw with it? MONEY, and disgust
> > that it was those who actually WORKED for a living who got
>
> > medical coverage instead of the poor who didn't. The
> > Democrats started it.
>
> Corporate Greed has put our healthcare situation in critical
> mass....
It has. Not disagreeing with you there. As I wrote in this thread, I disagree with Republicans on many counts.
>
> Now we have nothing but a complete
> > mess. That said, neither party has a good plan, and
> hasn't
> > in a dozen years. Socialized medicine would bankrupt us,
> > and those who needed special procedures would be forced to
>
> > DIE first... while Bush's plan leaves most out in the cold
>
> > because the averge joe can't afford the premiums. Sorry,
> > these days both parties are to blame with no real hope of
> > fixing the problem.
>
> I wish you had reconsidered Kerry's plan...actually Kerry
> had a good idea (sort of). Kerry realized that triage is 80%
> of the exploding cost of health care...not basic
> treatment...his plan would have addressed a lot of that
> problem and any savings would have been passed to (heres the
> flaw) the corporations that help pay employee's health
> plans...instead of it going to the people...thats the only
> recent plan that would have worked to some degree..but
> neither party has the best answer....
What may be needed here is some sort of national referendum on the issue, on the public airwaves. Yes healthcare has to be addressed, and soon... and this will have to be solved via compromise by both sides.
> I point out to you again, this Administration is doing
> national health care for IRAQ.....so they must have seen a
> benefit in doing it that way.....they certainly dont want to
> duplicate what we have now...the really sad part is that the
> foundation for doing this without growing government one bit
> already exists....Medicare....after some atttention is paid
> to the issues that are causing Medicare to be a huge cost,
> it would be easy to transfer Americans to an expanded
> Medicare as our national health careplan....but again the
> right demonizes....and it would help free trade..because
> small businesses would be able to compete as their biggest
> overhead cost is removed....and records for Social Security
> could be used to create the new Medicare databases...
>
>
> > Here's an issue that I bet nobody understands. And, while
> I
> > understand it, it causes me angst. You have to go back to
>
> > Reagan's first term. By 1980, taxes had become so high,
> > coupled with unions stranglehold on labor, that many if
> not
> > most large corporations were on the verge of being unable
> to
> > compete globally. Many were going bankrupt. The tax
> breaks
> > were meant to keep American industry afloat, in the
> > beginning.
>
> Again his breaks caused high deficits and he had to raise
> taxes....big time...Bush is repeating the same mistakes but
> on a massive scale...
> >
> > Now, of course, it's all out of control. Big business has
>
> > too many breaks and they are greedy as hell - would you
> > expect anything less from corporate fat calves? IMHO, its
>
> > long past time to whack big biz with some big tax hikes,
> > especially if they move American jobs overseas. Give the
> > majority of tax breaks to middle Americans who work for a
> > living... but for anyone to believe me requires them to
> > understand that I'm a moderate, not a far right winger.
>
> To support what you say there are two things
> happening....the tax burden is being shifted to the middle
> class....if you have no middle class ...you have no
> democracy...and this administration could care less...about
> the middle lass...do you rememeber the America Works Act in
> 2003...it gave a huge break to corporations to bring their
> foreign profits and cash they have been holding overseas
> back into the US at a 5% rate...can you remember ever paying
> that....you can't because you never will...
That's the thing that has me furious. However, the words of my grandfather ring in my ear right about now... 'if you let Republicans run the show, in no time they'll have society so poor they'd throw your poor grandmother out into the street to live under a bridge'. I didn't believe him. Too bad, too.. grandpa was the smartest man I ever knew.
>
> Bigger joke is Bush's resistance to get the rich to do their
> part on the alleged Social Security crisis....you and I and
> 99.8 percent of americans are taxed at 6% on your
> earnings....up to 90,000. That means most americans are hit
> with SS taxes...and corporations have to kick in the
> matching 6 percent...but the Bill Gates, Ken Lays, and
> others of that cash level only pay on 90,000 of their
> income...but this president calls that a tax increase
> ....when it doesnt affect 99.8 percent of
> americans.....raising the cap in a fair way eliminates the
> problem forever if the right rules are put in place...
>
> Next week or soon, the GOP will try to stop the Estate
> Tax...thus shifting over 190 billion dollars to the middle
> and working class....they call it the death tax..but it will
> be the death of this country....
>
> i understand the tax issue will my friend....
> >
Background in economics? You explain things very well.
>
> > No, news is fact, talk is opinion. I can definitely
> discern
> > between the two.
> >
> My comment was unfair...I didnt give you a chance to point
> out the media you prefer.....im glad you can make the
> difference...so many can't these days...
Media? Well, it's a mix & match kind of deal. I really believe the 'fair and balanced' principle, but not the kind Fox espouses. It's not that I necessarilly agree or disagree, but when I write a story, I'll use audio from wherever I can... AP, TV sources...CSPAN, our own correspondents... plus pieces from Reuters, BBC, AP and what I write myself. Often I'll do interviews of my own... hell, last Summer I called a couple of old radio co-workers now in other markets for an interview when hurricanes were approaching. But, my theory of news reporting is, only report the facts, and back them up wherever possible with a sound bite. And that means BOTH sides of the story, Left AND Right. I hope I'm not questioned on this again.
>
> > >
> > > Trust me when I say
> > > > most of the things I've heard from Franken, Gerafalo,
> > > etc..
> > > > are so laughable and unprovable that I wanna throw the
>
> > > radio
> > > > out the window half the time.
>
> Here we are again.....this isnt right ....unless you can
> provide evidence to the contrary.....fortunately the left
> has Media Matters as a start...then one can do their own
> research to decide if the point is untrue or true...Rush and
> Hannity and others tell some whoppers....and im willing to
> prove where they tell whoppers the next time we have a good
> debate like this one....and maybe you can debunk some AAR
> whoppers you have referred to...
Perhaps you're right on that point. But next time, I'll be sure to record or write down exactly what I've heard so I can argue point by point.
>
> > Not true. In fact I was listening to Franken just
> yesterday
> > and thinking to myself that he had a very funny bit and
> > probably was right... did a bit about NOAA scientists
> being
> > depressed. Damn funny and the 'evidence' presented was
> that
> > these scientists were handed memos telling them not to
> > present any evidence which would show environmental
> > problems. Actually, I believe that one. So, I don't
> ALWAYS
> > disagree... just in areas where the Bush bashing is the
> one
> > and sole object to the point that things are made up -
> which
> > is nearly every single time I tune in... DAILY!
> >
> personally Bush Bashing is not necessarily a lie....I listen
> to a lot of right wingers and most of them carry water for
> GOP talking points...so its easy to track where the comments
> come from.....but I question when the other side is not held
> to the same standard.....i mean Rush is good but Hannity is
> the better one at whopper creation...as of late....
I've always looked at Rush's show as entertainment. Remember when his show launched in 1988? I DO! It was a comedy skit from start to finish... until, that is, Bill Clinton ran for president. From that day until now it's been nothing less than a liberal bash fest. Not saying I didn't agree often, but there have been times that Rush made a fool out of himself being on the same side of the same issue day after day. It gets tiring. But in the beginning, it was the funniest, most entertaining show ever put on radio.
I wonder if Rush ever reads this forum?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
