BJean

P.S. Tom. If you are serious about the current state of affairs in your household, I am very sorry to hear it. I hope you were just using it to make a point, as did I.

Ron you IMPLIED that because Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden, we had to deal with all of the problems that Bin Laden has caused since then. 9/11 is directly related to Bin Laden. Actually looks like now you're saying that point doesn't exist. Uh. I'm lost on just exactly what your point was for bringing up the matter of Clinton not killing Bin Laden. Does that reasoning, your point or non-point, also apply to Bush not killing Bin Laden when we had him in our sights?

TOM: I wish I weren't so lazy. I had a sense that it was a case of a contemporary person doing just what you have confirmed. These religious fanatics! They'll do just about anything, stretch the truth not being the least of which, to keep that "under God" phrase in our Pledge and to justify laws that are based on their religious beliefs. I'm just sorry that Ron was taken in by that guy.

Bitter: Your last post sounds like a segway to the thread, "Worst American President"! LOL I really shouldn't be here. I've only taught folk art and cut and pierced lampshade making. But I do find it very interesting to read these posts.

I mean the ruination of the sanctity of your marriage might not have been because the couple was gay. Perhaps it was simply because they were not married, and were thereby living in sin. That can just completely ruin a neighborhood.

Well, I have one question for you TOM. Were the gay couple legally married?

Thanks Ron. Now I understand why you believe that the framers of the Constitution used the Bible when writing the Constitution. Did you read what Patrick Henry said?

Ron, I hope you weren't saying you're speaking for ALL Bible believing Christians.

TOM: I lived in Florida and went to Epcot countless times with visiting friends. We would go around the lagoon and visit different countries and view their fabulous PR pieces on those countries, Then we would come to the American pavillion, view that presentation and leave shaking our heads. The other countries had presentations about the beautiful scenery in their homelands, some emphasized the beautiful people of their country, all paint beautiful pictures of their countries... America? It emphasized how America came into being and goes on to talk about all our different wars. It's embarrassing even if you are proud of the fact that we are a strong nation and that we won those wars, it's embarrassing that they saw fit to not talk about our breathtaking scenery, our contributions to the betterment of the world, our incredible melting pot of humanity. They gave a presentation based on our military strength and how we can kick anybody's ass.

Sure seems quiet here. Funny. Seems quiet on another thread too.

Why aren't you outraged at Bush for letting Bin Laden go AFTER 9/11?

Even if Clinton negected to take out Bin Laden, what excuse do you have for Bush allowing others to handle the removal of Bin Laden out of his hiding hole when we found him in Afghanistan?

lisah25: It ain't necessarily so just because you say it is. Amen, sister.

lisah25: I am with you. I read earlier where you defended the intention of the framers of the Constitution. At this point, it is incumbent upon Ron to show us where it is documented anywhere that the earliest Americans sat down with a Bible and included verbage in the Constitution based on It's teachings. And our laws have the exact intention (or should have) of preventing people from harming each other and from infringing on others' freedom.

No Ron. Just because the people who framed the Constitution were moral and God fearing men, doesn't mean that the Constitution was BASED on the Bible. It was based on the framers making sure that the rights of individuals are not abridged. It was based on making sure that Americans ARE NOT forced to worship any one religion or belief. They had experienced it and therefore they knew how horrendous it is. You are the one who has it backwards.

Ron: Please don't misunderstand. I'm afraid you obviously have. You've said that something that is immoral, i.e., something that YOU believe is immoral because of your Christian beliefs (because the Bible has spelled it out for you), that you should take a stand on those immoral issues. What exactly do you mean by "take a stand"? My interpretation is that you believe that laws banning gay marriage and laws banning a woman being able to choose in the case of abortion, are right and good. Did I get that right? If I did, then you are wanting to legislate (make laws) based on morality, based on your Christian faith, and by doing so you are forcing your beliefs on others with differing beliefs. That is what President Bush is trying to do when he wants to ban those things and things like Stem Cell Research. That is legislating morality. That is not just practicing his faith and witnessing and praising God, worshiping Him and embracing the Ten Commandments. He is forcing his version of God upon the rest of American society. Whether you think the Constitution was written by Methodists, Catholics, Churchs of Christ, Christian Scientists, or whatever their faith, the fact is they had the wisdom to understand that there are people who will try to force their religion upon others, that's why they put the language in about separation of church and state. And this argument is exactly why that language is so incredibly, incredibly important to preserving freedom. I suspect that if you had your way, we who do not choose to embrace your puritanical (in some ways) doctrines, we would hop on boats and go someplace else and start a country where we would not be forced to live with no personal choice in who or what we believe in. God Bless America.

Wavydaby: How far should we go in being our "brothers keeper"? Should we all put our earnings in one large pot and someone who knows what we need, dole it out as we need it? I'm not trying to discourage you from posting at all. I am seriously interested in understanding if you think that the poem is a lovely sentiment that we should all strive for, or if you take it literally.

wavydavy: I hope you don't think that I believe that there is no God. Is that was you were trying to say by posting the poem?

P.S. To follow your logic, should we have expected John F. Kennedy to impose his Catholic doctrine on us? And that it is just fine because we knew he was a Catholic when we elected him? Oh please!

Ron: To legislate morality (yours) is to reduce freedom in this country. That goes to the heart of my post. I for one, knew that Bush was a proclaimed Christian, I did not know that his goal in life was to impose his religious views on all Americans. I did not know that he considered himself annointed by God in all of his decision-making. In many ways, he has lied to us. That is not what I believe most people in this country consider Christian behavior. That is one reason most people in this country feel betrayed. That is on reason people in this country fear him and fear the loss of freedom. To say that same sex marriage affects you is wrong. To say that it offends your Christian beliefs and your sense of morality may be true, but it has nothing absolutely to do with infringing on your rights or taking away your freedom. Banning same sex marriage is taking away (some) Americans' freedoms. It is wrong. You probably have a good idea how I feel about your intervention in a woman's right to choose. Keep your Christian beliefs out of my way. If you respect that this is a free country and that your Christian beliefs have nothing to do with me, you and I will get along fine. Otherwise, to me you're no different than a Muslim extremist telling me that I have to pray to Allah and cover my body from head to toe.

Ron, you obviously don't get it. Yes, I was being condescending. It is as much in my nature as your insulting, condescending remarks are in your nature, the disease of arthritis notwithstanding.

Oh geez. The thing about public intervention in all things private is wrong. In this country we think we should intervene in any situation where we think another citizen is wrong. That has no place in a free country unless it specifically harms someone else. That includes raising children. If you do not believe that the public schools teach the proper values in children, it is incumbent upon you to do as geezersue says: home school or private school your children. If you believe that spanking is the proper way to discipline your child, spank them in the privacy of your own home when you have a cool head, not in public when you are so angry you are dangerously close to harming your child. When you don't wear a helmet, there are arguments about insurance costs and the cost of cleaning up your bloody head off the pavement, so that affects society as a whole and there are, perhaps reasons for laws requiring helmets and seat belts. If you are a smoker and wish to permeate the air with the outgassing, do it in your own home where you are not polluting others' invironment. When it comes to deciding on using or not using contraceptives, it's nobody else's business. If your form of contraception fails and you need to have an abortion, that's not a decision that should be made by the rest of society. If you want to be married to a person of your own sex, that does no harm to other members of society and they should not make that decision for you. If a minister wants to state his views, religious, political or otherwise, it should be up to the congregation if they want to keep him and listen to him or give him the boot. There are all manner of religious kooks in this country, some who claim that snake handling is part of their religion, who cares? There are witches in this country who would like to have a tax-exempt church in which to perform their rites. Who cares? Either make all churches tax free, or none of them. You can't control what is preached from a pulpit. Or maybe you can, some societies in history have controlled that too. But they were not societies who claimed to be free societies. The problem with a lot of what has been said at this thread has been posted by one side, in particular, who believes that everyone who does not believe not only in Christianity, but in THEIR brand of Christianity, is wrong and going to hell, and that their brand of Christianity should be the law of the land. That's treading on everyone's rights who have opposing religious beliefs. That's not freedom, that's oppression. When people from one religious or political group wants to take my freedom away and make me believe as they believe and live as they think I should live, I draw the line and I want to do all I can to prevent that from happening. When we get a president in the Oval Office who wants to use his religion and his own personal beliefs to ensure that there are people serving on the Supreme Court who also practice his religion and who will one day, impose that religion on me and other free citizens of this Country, I think we should be scared and speak out. When the president of the United States uses his religion and his belief system to take up arms against another nation in spite of what the majority of Americans believe and in spite of what his advsisors tell him, we HAVE TO SPEAK OUT or we are in jepoardy of losing all of our freedom in this country. Just because someone puts a religious label on their actions, doesn't mean that they are either RIGHT or GOOD or GODLIKE. It means that they are dictators in their hearts. That's not why I love America or why I think I should respect that president. Just because someone believes that he is a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR, doesn't give him the right to be a dictator of any kind in this democratic, free, society. God Bless America.

All youse guys complaining about Planned Parenthood PREACHING... just remember the difference between a group supporting people's rights going public with their position, and a pastor standing in front of his obedient congregation, from his pulpit, preaching against abortion as being immoral and a sin and a reason for going to HELL. Please tell me that you all see the distinction. Second point I'd like to make is that the term lobbying has been used and I'm not sure that it is accurate used in this context. I have never seen the Planned Parenthood organization, for instance, LOBBY for abortion. As far as the spelling issue here, I will admit that I am one of those rotten people who mentioned some especially bad spelling here - not to accuse someone directly, but you know who you are... almost all of us! We all misspell words and use grammar incorrectly and are guilty of other errors that are high crimes and misdemeanors in our use of the English language to try to convey our thoughts. My complaint is that sometimes it is very difficult to read a post that is frought with many, many misspelled words and incorrect usages of words. I'm not looking for perfection, please understand that. I do find some posts very difficult to understand, and I do wonder sometimes about the haste and anger that must be behind that kind of post. I feel sorry for anyone who has arthritis so bad that it affects their spelling and grammar and word usage. My arthritic knees hurt so bad sometimes that I can't think straight either.

Except for TommyO, I never thought I'd laugh outloud at this post. Thanks Ron, you're hilarious!

Uh-oh Tom. You're in for it now!