PDA

View Full Version : John Edwards, Parent????



pooltchr
09-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Edwards says it's not his job as a parent to teach his moral values to his children. Whose job is it????????

Although considering he was an ambulance chaser before he became a politician, maybe he isn't the best person to teach moral values to anyone!

Go ahead and knock the Republicans. The Dem candidates are showing their true colors already.

Steve

Vapros
09-28-2007, 06:05 PM
Edwards recently told this story on himself to an audience:
He had asked his wife, "Honey, did you ever, in your wildest dreams, think I would be running for President?" His wife responded, "Honey, you're not even in my wildest dreams!"

wolfdancer
09-28-2007, 06:25 PM
I believe you're grasping at straws here, and without checking, think you may be taking what he said out of context.
But I'm not voting for Mr. Edwards anyway.
Maybe this time we will vote for the candidates qualifications, and stated goals, and not for some tax cut, or
celebrity status.

DickLeonard
09-28-2007, 06:33 PM
Wolfdancer everyime I think of qualifications I Google the Bush Crime Family then I laugh at anyone who brings up qualifications.####

pooltchr
09-29-2007, 04:20 AM
Wolf,
He was talking about his position on gay marriage, and he said that it was not his job as a parent to impose his moral views on his children. I think that is a pretty straightforward statement of his views on parenting.
If that is true, what is the job of a parent? To put food on the table and a roof over their heads. If a parent isn't going to teach their children values, who is? Their friends? Government schools?
When my daughter was living at home, I felt like teaching her moral values, the difference between right and wrong, was PRECISELY my job! She is now 33 and a mother of 2 great kids, and she turned out pretty darn good.
Take a look at the youth of our country today. As a general rule, the ones who get guidance at home are not the ones joining gangs, roaming the streets and killing each other.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child...it takes parents who are willing to invest time and energy into raising the children they create.
When I was young, my parents not only made sure I had my values straight, but also that there were consequences for making the wrong decisions. I expect you probably had a similar experience as a child.
Children aren't born with good judgement. They need to learn values, and they sure won't learn them out in the world. Teaching them that if it feels right to them, then it must be ok just doesn't get it. That attitude is one reason our society is falling apart. The "free love" generation changed the rules of parenting. And look at what we have now...a generation filled with kids who would shoot you over a pair of tennis shoes!
Steve

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 10:04 AM
Gee, I thought the job of a parent was to set an example for their kids, and to give them educated opinions of issues of right and wrong, and then encourage them to determine for themselves where they stand on life's many quandaries, not brain wash them according to what some false God at the pulpit deciphers as a moral code, or deminish them for not subscribing to our own values, but to find their own interpretations.

A parents job, IMHO, is to teach a child to think for him/her self, and to provide them with enough attention, time, love, support and education to inform them on how to achieve effective, discriminating analysis.

Studies have shown that poverty is the cause of the ills you mention, and while a parent whose own childhood was not neglected by the many negative effects of childhood poverty is likely to be financially secure enough to have the time and education to provide a good home, and a better example for their kids, is more likely to have the tools necessary to do so, the goal of parenthood is not to force ones children to adhere to their own moral interpretations, but to teach them how to think, not what to think, and to enrich that experience by setting a sterling example of the goodness, and value of unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, and self analysis. One need not employ the methods of brain washing, nor strict authoritarianism, in order to succeed in that endeavor. Autonomy is a function of effective, critical thinking ability, and good mental health is the result of the decision to think, not an after effect of having been degraded for the process of making mistakes, taking risks, and forming autonomous opinions. Encouraging ones children to think and decipher what they believe about the many issues of living expands their sense of self, and supports their healthy growth as induviduals.

Having seen the debate, I know that is where Mr. Edwards was coming from, and not only that, he definately commanded my respect for such an enlightened statement.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
09-29-2007, 03:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> he definately commanded my respect for such an enlightened statement.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

For some strange reason, I'm not surprised.

Yes, let's allow our children to make informed choices.
"Johnny, what would you like for dinner? We have broiled chicken, lima beans, and cole slaw. This is a very good choice, as these are all good for you. Or, you could have a Big Mac with large fries and a chocolate shake. This is not good for you at all. The choice is yours!

Bet he gest the shake in a Harry Potter cup!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Steve

wolfdancer
09-29-2007, 04:23 PM
short story..Dr. Freda Morris, who was a Professor of Medical Pshchology at UCLA's Medical School, did just that. Deciding that the normal parent/child relationship is a power relationship, with the parents holding all the power....she turned over all her assets, cash, house, 40 acres, to her children...a 12 yr old boy, and a 16 yr old girl.
I wouldn't recommend it, but they all ended up ok. I have a relative with strong moral convictions,very well off and respected...but has had many problems with his now grown children. He definitely led by example....but couldn't force
his choices upon them.
Maybe what Edwards was saying...he couldn't make moral decisions for his kids....they would have to make their own.
Given the state of political scandals recently...are you really trying to point out that the Republican pols are superior in installing moral values on their children?

Sid_Vicious
09-29-2007, 04:54 PM
"Johnny, what would you like for dinner? We have broiled chicken, lima beans, and cole slaw. This is a very good choice, as these are all good for you. Or, you could have a Big Mac with large fries and a chocolate shake. This is not good for you at all. The choice is yours!"

What a counter point, you are poorly wrong-right. sid

pooltchr
09-29-2007, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Given the state of political scandals recently...are you really trying to point out that the Republican pols are superior in installing moral values on their children? <hr /></blockquote>

I didn't say anything about anyone being superior to anyone...I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be an indicator of one persons leadership capabilities, or lack thereof. Is this the attitude he would bring to the oval office? Would we end up telling our enemies "Well, I don't think you should be building nuclear weapons, but it's not my place to tell you what to do. You just do what you think is right, and I will support whatever decision you make."?
If we are going to end up establishing "dialogue" with our enemies, I would feel much more secure if I thought our side had a little bit of backbone.
Steve

moblsv
09-29-2007, 06:00 PM
If you only tell them which to choose without teaching them why, how will they choose when you are not there?

I think you just made Gayle's point about informed decisions

pooltchr
09-29-2007, 08:37 PM
I don't think so.
When we were growing up, by siblings and I knew that our parents were in charge, and they made the rules and decisions.
One big problem with our society today is that somehow, the parents are no longer in charge, the kids are. And it's because parents have taken the easy way out. They don't set down limits for kids, but let them choose for themselves. Most kids are not mature enough to make the right decisions, regardless of how informed they might be.
Parenting requires that parents sometimes have to reign in the kids, they actually need to tell them "no" sometimes, and establish standards of acceptable behavior. Parents are too afraid of scarring their kids little egos, so they teach them that anything is ok, as long as the kids feel good about it. Heaven forbid someone tells little Johnny that something is "wrong". He might suffer emotional trama that will have him in therapy and on behavior modifying drugs for years.
If a parent is too weak to take control and be the leader of the family, why would I want them to lead the entire country?
Steve

wolfdancer
09-29-2007, 08:49 PM
that's a big leap from teen morals to nuclear weapons....
I sort of understand your point...what I don't understand though is the thinking that only the right will stand up and protect us from terrorism.

wolfdancer
09-29-2007, 08:56 PM
Sid, my friend was over for some pool last nite. His 5 yr old is in school now, a couple of days a week. They gave the kids a choice of regular or chocolate milk....just one kid drank the unleaded stuff. Almost all the snacks are sugar laden,cookies, etc.. and his kid was coming home wired, before he crashed.
My friend got a Dr.s statement, that he is not to be fed sugar products. There's article after article on childhood obesity, and diabetes...WTF is the matter with these school administrators?

Drop1
09-29-2007, 09:13 PM
The average person becomes sexually active at the age of fifteen,with out the sage advice of their parents,and by age seventeen,have nothing in common with their parents,except a need for money. I don't see many parents into body piercing,TV.games and electronic music, when was the last time you got your nipples pierced,a new tattoo,and went home to listen to Cex?

Drop1
09-29-2007, 09:19 PM
Wolf,there are ten teaspoons of sugar in a coke. Small wonder so many kids are addicted.

pooltchr
09-30-2007, 05:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...what I don't understand though is the thinking that only the right will stand up and protect us from terrorism.
<hr /></blockquote>
Once again, I never made that suggestion. My post was directed at one comment from one candidate. Just because I think Edwards is off base on this one doesn't mean anyone else is necessarily ok. John Edwards was our Senator, and I have seen first hand what a sorry job he did for North Carolina. (Actually, he didn't do much at all...within a month of being elected, he was in New Hampshire campaigning for a new job!)

I'm not comparing him to anyone else, simply taking his stand on this and considering how it would translate into what we could expect from him as President. I don't put much stock in what any politician says they will do. I think past actions are a much more reliable indicator of future performance. In this case, the way he deals with parenting responsibilities gives me an idea of what we can expect, should he be elected.
Steve

Gayle in MD
09-30-2007, 07:10 AM
I dare say you must not have had that view when you voted for George Bush, a man who was drunk till forty and had indulged in cocaine use, practiced insider trading, bailed out by his daddy, and daddy's friends, throughout his adult life for breaking the law, had hidden and lied about his drunk driving record from, and to the country, and had never succeeded in any honest endeavor in his entire adult life. His only successful attempt was in the field of cheerleading, but you voted for him twice, even after it became evident that he was a pathological liar.

Anyone who had studied psychology would have understood completely what John Edwards was saying. It is his children's job to form an opinion on how they view homosexuality, human rights, and the other issues they will face in their time. Good parenting teaches children how to think, not what to think, and issues such as gay rights, have nothing to do with parenting.

Just because you bring a life into this world, that does not give you the right to dictate to them what their personal opinions and feelings about such issues must be. Studies have shown that authoritarian parents, who view their children as extentions of themselves, rather than encouraging them to find their own light, and help them to hold it high, are the worst parents of all, create the widest void between themselves, and their children, and do not foster personal growth, healthy self esteem, autonomous decisions, or a solid emotional bond, which is truly the bedrock of good parent/child relationships.

You're taking a comment, and twisting the meaning into something that wasn't intended, IMO. Eating vegetables vs eating junk food, has nothing to do with it, and such a comparison, is laughable, at best. Feeding ones children properly means not supplying them with foods that are bad for the entire family. Feeding their hearts and souls, has nothing to do with telling them what to think, but building trust, supplying unconditional love, consistantly imposing responsible guildlines in the home for appropriate bahavior, and building respect within the mutual relationship one has with ones children, not forcing the way you might feel toward homosexuals upon them. Strict dicipline is a far cry from responsible guidence and successful parenting. Having children who respect their parent's guidelines for behavior has nothing to do with demanding that they adhere to their parents same opinions about others in their world, only that they approach those opinions from an informed point of view, and understand that different, does not mean threatening.

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
09-30-2007, 09:20 AM
You are my hero /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

This thread (along with the historical posts of those involved) seems to suggest a dangerously short path from being raised with authoritarian parents to developing authoritarian behaviors in politics/religion as an adult. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Gayle in MD
09-30-2007, 09:59 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, Thank you dear friend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This thread (along with the historical posts of those involved) seems to suggest a dangerously short path from being raised with authoritarian parents to developing authoritarian behaviors in politics/religion as an adult.


<hr /></blockquote>

You are so right my dear friend, and John Dean's book, Without Conscience, explains that phenomena thoroughly, using the studies performed by our own government, (back when we had a government based on the principles of democracy) which were launched in an effort to understand how a despot like Hitler could ever have managed to achieve such wide support from the people of his country, and hence prosecute the horrible inhumane treatment of human beings.

The very same tactics have been highly evident throughout the Bush Administration, and their adventures in semantics, along with the continuous use of fear, and false propaganda, are just two of the similarities.

It is not surprising that the right, jumps to defend, with overwhelming support, the sneaky and underhanded methods this administration used when they broke with American traditional values, and international agreements, to justify the use of torture. Also, no surprise that these same people deny the great damage our country has suffered, due to that very evil, unchecked, and still unnaccounted for, slap against American principles, and high intentions, and the resulting great loss of global respect which America has lost, forever a black mark against our country, and all that we previously stood for as Americans.

"When fascism comes, it comes with a smile, carrying a cross."

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
09-30-2007, 10:26 AM
Yeah, especially since they single handedly expanded it with their policies for the last three decades! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

G. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

wolfdancer
09-30-2007, 02:21 PM
Gayle, nicely written !!

pooltchr
09-30-2007, 05:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> but you voted for him twice, even after it became evident that he was a pathological liar.


Gayle in Md.



<hr /></blockquote>

That's nothing. I still skim over your posts, even though I already know you probably won't have anything new to say.
Steve

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 06:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Edwards says it's not his job as a parent to teach his moral values to his children. Whose job is it????????

Although considering he was an ambulance chaser before he became a politician, maybe he isn't the best person to teach moral values to anyone!

Go ahead and knock the Republicans. The Dem candidates are showing their true colors already.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

It takes a village to raise a child. Even a child that did not net the parents a $20 million dollar settlement because some Ob-GYn simply did his job to the best of his ability and 12 dumbassass on a jury liked Edwards haircut.

He really is pretty you have to admit.

It takes a village to raise a child. Even in a 28,000 sq. ft. house, because the parents bought carbon offsets.

I think my head is going to explode.

I will now read the thread.

Steve, I get the feeling you did not vote for this charlatan.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 06:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Gee, I thought the job of a parent was to set an example for their kids, and to give them educated opinions of issues of right and wrong, and then encourage them to determine for themselves where they stand on life's many quandaries, not brain wash them according to what some false God at the pulpit deciphers as a moral code, or deminish them for not subscribing to our own values, but to find their own interpretations.

A parents job, IMHO, is to teach a child to think for him/her self, and to provide them with enough attention, time, love, support and education to inform them on how to achieve effective, discriminating analysis.

Studies have shown that poverty is the cause of the ills you mention, and while a parent whose own childhood was not neglected by the many negative effects of childhood poverty is likely to be financially secure enough to have the time and education to provide a good home, and a better example for their kids, is more likely to have the tools necessary to do so, the goal of parenthood is not to force ones children to adhere to their own moral interpretations, but to teach them how to think, not what to think, and to enrich that experience by setting a sterling example of the goodness, and value of unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, and self analysis. One need not employ the methods of brain washing, nor strict authoritarianism, in order to succeed in that endeavor. Autonomy is a function of effective, critical thinking ability, and good mental health is the result of the decision to think, not an after effect of having been degraded for the process of making mistakes, taking risks, and forming autonomous opinions. Encouraging ones children to think and decipher what they believe about the many issues of living expands their sense of self, and supports their healthy growth as induviduals.

Having seen the debate, I know that is where Mr. Edwards was coming from, and not only that, he definately commanded my respect for such an enlightened statement.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

That's just about the biggest load of gobbledy-gook I have read in quite a while.

I think Steve's response to wolfie was much more cogent, succint, and to the point.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 06:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


Anyone who had studied psychology would have understood completely what John Edwards was saying. It is his children's job to form an opinion on how they view homosexuality, human rights, and the other issues they will face in their time.
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually it is the parents job to instill values in their children. I guess my opinion carries no weight since I have not "studied psychology"

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 01:55 AM
Steve, got 2 hours to spare?
Here's a video on Conscious Parenting
You will need to dl the free DIVX player to view:
web page (http://stage6.divx.com/user/krahosk/video/1342330/The-Biology-of-Conscious-Parenting)
Nature, Nurture and Human Development

Abstract: The role of nature-nurture must be reconsidered in light of the Human Genome Project's surprising results. Conventional biology emphasizes that human expression is controlled by genes, and is under the influence of nature. Since 95% of the population possess "fit" genes, dysfunctions in this population are attributable to environmental influences (nurture). Nurture experiences, initiated in utero, provide for "learned perceptions." Along with genetic instincts, these perceptions constitute the life-shaping subconscious mind. The conscious mind, which functions around age six, operates independently of the subconscious. Conscious mind can observe and criticize behavioral tapes, yet can not "force" a change in subconscious.

One of the perennial controversies that tends to evoke rancor among biomedical scientists concerns the role of nature versus nurture in the unfoldment of life [Lipton, 1998a]. Those polarized on the side of nature invoke the concept of genetic determinism as the mechanism responsible for "controlling" the expression of an organism's physical and behavioral traits. Genetic determinism refers to an internal control mechanism resembling a genetically-coded "computer" program. At conception, it is believed that the differential activation of selected maternal and paternal genes collectively "download" an individual's physiologic and behavioral character, in other words, their biological destiny.

In contrast, those endorsing "control" by nurture argue that the environment is instrumental in "controlling" biological expression. Rather than attributing biological fate to gene control, nurturists contend that environmental experiences provide an essential role in shaping the character of an individual's life. The polarity between these philosophies simply reflects the fact that those endorsing nature believe in an internal control mechanism (genes) while those supporting nurture mechanisms ascribe to an external control (environment).

The resolution of the nature and nurture controversy is profoundly important in regard to defining the role of parenting in human development. If those endorsing nature as the source of "control" are correct, the fundamental character and attributes of a child are genetically predetermined at conception. Genes, presumed to be self-actualizing, would control organismal structure and function. Since development would be programmed and executed by the internalized genes, the basic role of the parent would be to provide nutrition and protection for their growing fetus or child.

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 08:26 AM
Steve Writes:

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about anyone being superior to anyone...I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be an indicator of one persons leadership capabilities, or lack thereof. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">You didn't? I think you did. Your post was about John Edwards, saying that it was not his job to impose his own moral values, regarding homosexuality, in this case, upon his children. You then suggested that his failure to do so, means that he is a bad parent, and could not be a good leader since he doesn't subscribe to the authoritarian methods of parenting.

Would he be a better parent, if he instilled some degrading, demonizing, biblical based judgement regarding homosexuals, upon his kids? Republicans have been bashing homosexuals, the poor, and disenfranchising blacks, for years. Then, when someone notices their great capacity for discrimination, and divisive tactics, they immediately want to deny it.

Your post shows that you are drawn to authoritarian methods for raising kids. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do," philosophy? The handing down of biblical philosophy, which is the bedrock of discrimination against blacks, gays and women? You are suggesting that because Edwards parents by example, and encourages his children to use their own judgement, think things through on their own, that means he doesn't also provide house rules, and guidlines as a parent. And, that furthermore, his non authoritarian approach, is proof that he does not have leadership abilities.

This post is about a desperate reach to slander someone you hate, by using illogical premises. Smacks of anti-War = non support of our troops, anti-Bush = anti America, understanding the enemy, = having tea and cookies with terrorists as a foreing policy, expectations of legal actions, open daylight government and proceedures from the president of the United States = a lack of partiotism, all these are false premises, and the very tactics used by Hitler and every other dictator we have ever witnessed. Authoritarian leaders, need authroitarian followers to manage their unprecedented power reach, and the hidden governments they promote...secret meeting with oil execs, secret purged e-mails, secret loyal Bushies creating false intelligence, amounting to a secret, hidden government, and supported by a no oversight blank check Republican Majority.

Again, I suppose you think Mr. Edwards would have been a better parent had he handed down his own gay bashing ideals to his kids? Typical southern styled biblical demonizing philosophy. Typical Republican divisive tactics. I'm sure Guiliani, whose kids don't even speak to him, or Romney, whose example was to put the family dog on the roof of his station wagon, in a cage, and drive through the cold eight hundred miles, McCain, who sucked up to Bush after Bush's resident pig, Karl Rove, slandered the entire McCain family, right before his slandered children's eyes, and his wife's? Huckabee, who smashed the hard drives of all his computers when he left the governorship to destroy any incriminating evidence. I'm sure all enjoy your approval as good parents? I'm quite sure you think that Bush set a great example for his kids, drunk till forty, skipping out on combat, with Daddy's help, and hiding his DWI's and insider trading?

I'm sure you were raised by authoritarian parents. Congratulations, you fit right into the Republican pseudo high morals box, and anti humanitarian standards. No complaints about Bush blowing all your tax money, running up huge deficits, in debt to China for hundreds of billions, some estimate over two trillion, after interest, with interest accumulating daily, all on a lie, and to benefit his corporate cronies, and killing hundreds of thousands in the process, destroying their country, torturing prisoners, but don't let any money go for the poor, the hungry, or the poverty strickened. What a great example to set for ones children. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Redistributing of wealth is not the same thing as living in a society that cares about the poorest of the poor, the aged, and the ill. Socialism isn't about caring about the ill, rather than giving carte blanche to corporate fascists to gouge the American public for their medicine and gasoline, and democracy isn't about disregarding safety precautions, in the interest of the bottom line, anymore than it is about creating a society where the top ten percent own 90% of the wealth, through huge tax breaks for those who don't need them, and taking the money from the middle class, to finance tax breaks for the wealthy.

Gayle in Md. </font color>

eg8r
10-01-2007, 10:42 AM
Steve, you are just spinning your wheels. These forum members think you should just let your kids do whatever the heck they want to do and they don't want to be responsible for a single thing. They want the Government to provide free handouts to these "informed" do-whatever-you-can-get-away-with kids and never force responsibility on them at all.

eg8r

eg8r
10-01-2007, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is the matter with these school administrators? <hr /></blockquote> Administrators? Weren't you one of the ones that agreed with Gayle's BS reply to Steve in the earlier post about "informing" the children. Given Gayles logic from that thread this is the parents fault for not "informing" the children to eat what is healthy for themselves.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 11:21 AM
Instilling values, and handing down predjudice, are two different things. This thread is about Steve, stating the Edwards meant to say that he didn't think his job as a parent was to impose his personal beliefs about homosexuality, upon his kids. He used the word values, at the time, but it was obvious what he meant, as the question was about gay rights.

Steve is trying to distort Edward's meaning, plain and simple, because he hates Edwards.

A parent's job is to provide a stable homelife, educate their children, set a good example, teach self-responsibility, provide them with plenty of love and attention, quality time, emotional support, consistant, responsible, diciplined dicipline, and encourage independent, autonomous, thinking and decision making skills. It is a supportive, loving, guiding function, not an authoritarian dictatorship, where a parent demands that their children embrace every single belief system of the parent, on every single aspect of life.

Reagan's kids didn't even speak to him, half the time.
Guiliani's kids want nothing to do with him at all. Bush's daughters have both been charged with drinking offenses, Bush abused alcohol long after he became a parent. Edwards, as far as I know, has a good relationship with his kids, and a good marriage. Steve, IMO, jumped on a simple statement, twisted it's meaning, and blew it out of purportion.

If you ever meet any blue collar workers who work at the Senate Office Building, just ask them what they think of John McCain. He's know as a screaming, pompus, arrogant, hot head, who thinks he's better than anyone who doesn't weaar a tie and white shirt to work, IOW, blue collar workers. He's knows for acting like a complete A-H***.

Yes, knowledge of psychology, is a plus in parenting, and in ones life, in general.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 11:39 AM
Well Ed, only you could twist this around, or maybe it wasn't clear what I wrote, so let me explain.
To a 5 yr old kid, most adults represent a figure of authority. His parents have a set of rules at home, but this new person in charge, his teacher is offering everything that tastes good to a 5 yr old, and all of his classmates are indulging....do you expect him to make the healthy, informed choice on his own?
This is quite different from Gayle's reply which basically states that you can't impose your moral values on your children.
The video I suggested that Steve might want to view has more in depth explanation on the subject.
But since you will also twist this post around...I won't be reading your reply....
If BD had a contest here to see who the biggest jerk, the biggest a-hole was...you'd win hands down.
You take the most benign post, and try to make it into a political statement, and denigrate the person that wrote it.
In fact you come across like a 5 yr old...what a pos you must be in person.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 11:52 AM
You shouldn't have to explain what is obvious....You and I have our interpretation of what Edwards was saying...and that makes sense. The meanings that some here are trying to imply...defy logic.
I certainly believe though that you can hand down prejudice to your children. Growing up in what was almost an all Irish neighborhood, we didn't like the "Polacks" Polish people, that dominated the next neighborhood across the bridge.
We didn't like any Protestants either, but felt sorry for them, because we were the only ones going to Heaven.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 12:07 PM
While some here are trying very hard to twist around what Edwards said....
You and I know what Edwards was trying to say, and that version makes sense. what they are implying defies logic...and
give Edwards enough credit to know that version would be political suicide...he would never state that publicly, even if that was his belief.
Axe murderers aren't raised by axe murderers...but sometimes by normal, well adjusted, even ultra religious parents....
We're all born with a free will though...unless you are sired by Republicans

Drop1
10-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Bingo! Wolf, all you said makes sense,however there is the theory of environmental evolution,with the notion a person socially reflects the mores of their peers,culture,and changing Religious,and educational institutions. That information does not come with the genome.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 01:21 PM
I've read where a child's "character" is something like 90% developed by age 6. I'm sure that environment plays a great role in that...but also think we are "hard-wired" at birth, and born with a free will (unless sired by Republicans)
Axe murderers are not usually raised by axe murderers....

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Well jack, there is certainly no doubt that parents hand down many predjudices to their kids, and that bigotry is learned at home.

I recall back in the late fifties, the father of my best girl friend, who lived across the street, came to our door one night with a baseball bat in his hand, raging, and yelling. The first black family had moved into the neighborhood, and her Dad had come over to get my Dad to go with him, and a few other neighbors, to "Stone" them out. I guess I was about thriteen or fourteen at the time, and I will never forget what my father told him.

"Those people have just as much right to make a living, and buy the home of their choice, as you do. Leave them alone. They're not hurting you. How would you like it if a group in this neighborhood decided to stone out anyone who belonged to the Masons?"

I was so proud of dad that night, and I could definitely see the difference between her dad, and mine. I think it's a disgrace the way the Republican Party has joined with the religious right to destroy the social progress our country had made regarding women's rights, acceptance and tolerance of gays, and the plight of the poverty strickened, often people of color, which they often paint as lazy and undeserving of help, even when they are in desperate circumstances left over from a natural disaster.

Faith based? Compassionate Conservatism? "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Yeah, right! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 02:27 PM
I think the real problem with some religious people is that there is a "transference"...and they now imagine themselves to have some kind of divinity, and then in the worst case scenarios, their faults, deviations become their virtues (to them)...they are doing God's work...like Jim Baker,David Koresh, Jim Jones, or the leaders of these polygamist sects.
That they attract so many followers...I don't understand.
The Baghwan Shree Rajneesh was my favorite...appearing just once daily before the faithful, driven in one of his 30 Rolls Royces...Because the cars were driven so rarely, and slowly, they often broke down. They tried to take over the governemtn of a city here in Washington,by poisoning it's elected officials. And Rev Moon....do you think a certain poster here, has a saffron robe hidden away some place?
In the not so extreme cases...we have the Jerry Falwells of the world

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 02:44 PM
And speaking of authoritarianism...


Kathleen Reardon
Let's Get Back To The Lies And Liars



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Neil Cavuto and several of his guests yesterday provided a stark reminder of the unparalleled capacity authoritarians have to live comfortably with complete contradiction.

While Cavuto insists that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't have their health care paid for by Americans, he fails to focus the blame on those who allowed the situation in the first place. Instead, he points to liberals "demanding health benefits for kids who shouldn't even be here" as part of us "losing our rights," "losing our constitution," and "losing who we are."

EXCUSE ME! Am I missing something here? The Bush administration has kept the borders open - wide open - to millions of immigrants. Why? To meet the needs of self-serving businesses claiming Americans won't take the jobs. Try paying them a decent wage.

And if that isn't enough, Senator Bob Menendez (Dem- New Jersey) explained that illegal immigrant children aren't eligible under the bill Bush intends to veto and that this argument is a red herring.

Bill Kristol went after the bill because some people making 200-300% over the poverty line might try to get coverage for their children. So fix that part if it's true. But this is the same guy who last night referred to Democratic candidates in the last debate as "cavalier." Yet, he cavalierly pushes for war with Iran.

Who are these people? And when do we see them called on their lies instead of watching Tim Russert try to play Gotcha with Hillary Clinton by catching her in a disagreement with Bill. That was gratuitous, arguably sexist, and a waste of voter time.

Let's get back to pointing out the liars, as they're the truly dangerous ones. Even children aren't spared.

Dr. Reardon is author of The Secret Handshake, It's All Politics and The Skilled Negotiator.

<font color="red">Didn't mean to change the total subject, but, posted this as a reminder of the typical authoritarian tactics. Now, the same idiots that got us into this mess, are pushing for war with Iraq. Personally, I would love to see William Kristol go the way of Jerry Falwell, and trip over his own fat jowells, and drop dead!

And from another op ed by Thomas Edsell,

[ QUOTE ]
Republican kingpins consider the best possible long-term strategy letting Democrats take over responsibility for the extraordinary mess Bush will leave behind. The next president will have to deal with Iraq, Iran with the bomb, biological and chemical threats, $8.98 trillion in national debt, global warming, rising gas prices, a Mideast on fire, overstretched troops, a legion of returning wounded soldiers, a country unprepared for its aging population, North Korea's supply of nuclear technology to Syria, a steadily eroding dollar, a surging China, and an exponential increase in the number of those who wish America ill.

Is this why the party plagued by weak allegiance on the part of female voters has three frontrunners for the nomination with a combined total of seven marriages and three trophy wives? And the fourth top candidate a Mormon at a time of anti-Mormon caricature (Under the Banner of Heaven, Big Love) facing major hurdles with the party's evangelical base?

Gee, you wouldn't think a rightie would be on here throwing stones about family values, would you? And BTW, Edward's daughter made a statement that her dad had a hard time with the term, Gay Marriage, but she didn't have a problem with it. Pretty obvious, what Edwards was refering to, huh? <hr /></blockquote> </font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
10-01-2007, 02:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

Personally, I would love to see William Kristol go the way of Jerry Falwell, and trip over his own fat jowells, and drop dead!


<hr /></blockquote>

and the Left accuses the Right of "hate speech"?

you sound like you would be a perfect host for Air America.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 05:53 PM
I missed out on all that nurturing, because.....
well, dammit, I just wasn't Mom's favorite...
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6930/notmomsfavoriteig0.jpg

"Dear kindly Judge, your Honour
My parents treat me rough
With all their marijuana
They won't give me a puff
They didn't wanna have me
But somehow I was had
Leapin' lizards,
that's why I'm so bad
My daddy beats my mommy
My mommy clubbers me
My grand'pa is a commie
My grand'ma pushes tea
My sisters wears a moustache
My brother wears a dress
Goodness gracious,
that's why I'm a mess"
(Officer Krumke Lyrics...from West side Story)

pooltchr
10-01-2007, 08:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Instilling values, and handing down predjudice, are two different things. This thread is about Steve, stating the Edwards meant to say that he didn't think his job as a parent was to impose his personal beliefs about homosexuality, upon his kids. He used the word values, at the time, but it was obvious what he meant, as the question was about gay rights.

<font color="red"> So Edwards the parent thinks it's best to allow his children to make their own choices. Would he feel the same way as President if Congress disagreed with him over any subject? Would he think the Republicans should be able to go against his personal wishes? Or would he use his authority to impose his beliefs on them, or on the American people? </font color>

Steve is trying to distort Edward's meaning, plain and simple, <font color="red"> Steve isn't distorting anything. Steve is simply pointing out the Edwards may very well be incapable of being the strong leader we need. </font color> because he hates Edwards. <font color="red"> Steve doesn't hate Edwards. Steve has a very low opinion of the man who made millions off of the poor, and then tells them he is on their side. He is an ambulance chasing shyster lawyer who is on whichever side can make him the most money. As a Senator, he was a complete failure...hardly my idea of Presidential material. </font color>



Reagan's kids didn't even speak to him, half the time.
Guiliani's kids want nothing to do with him at all. Bush's daughters have both been charged with drinking offenses, Bush abused alcohol long after he became a parent. Edwards, as far as I know, has a good relationship with his kids, and a good marriage. <font color="red"> Wolfe accused me of making comparisons, which I have not done. You agreed, which makes you wrong. Then you start making the comparisons yourself. The thread wasn't about anyone other than Edwards until you started bringing up this kind of crap. </font color> Steve, IMO, jumped on a simple statement, twisted it's meaning, and blew it out of purportion. <font color="red"> That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, for purposes of discussion, I would prefer to stick to the facts. </font color>

If you ever meet any blue collar workers who work at the Senate Office Building, just ask them what they think of John McCain. <font color="red"> Again, you bring up someone else to make your arguement that your guy isn't any worse than someone else. It just isn't much of an arguement with me, since I don't hold McCain in the highest esteem either. </font color> He's know as a screaming, pompus, arrogant, hot head, who thinks he's better than anyone who doesn't weaar a tie and white shirt to work, IOW, blue collar workers. He's knows for acting like a complete A-H***.

Yes, knowledge of psychology, is a plus in parenting, and in ones life, in general. <font color="red"> Knowledge of facts is another plus. Try getting yours straight. Don't put words in my mouth, and try sticking to the point rather than bringing in all your strawman arguements. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Drop1
10-01-2007, 09:06 PM
Now what we have here,is an example of hard wiring to avoid thinking. I'm sure it won't be long,before we discover the "Faith" gene,that will explain true believers,willing to die for someone else's psychosis,like the Christians,that volunteered to be eaten by lions. They probably all went to Hell,for committing suicide.

Qtec
10-02-2007, 05:49 AM
In context.
[ QUOTE ]
In response to a question of whether he would be comfortable having a fairy tale read to his second-grader that ends with two men kissing and living happily ever after, Edwards had this to say: " I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in (chuckling), what did you say, second grade? Well, second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade, to be exposed to all those possibilities. Because I don't want to impose my view nobody made me God I don't get to decide on behalf of my family and my children. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." <hr /></blockquote>

He is talking SPECIFICALLY about gays.

Q

eg8r
10-02-2007, 06:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well Ed, only you could twist this around, or maybe it wasn't clear what I wrote, so let me explain.
<hr /></blockquote> Instead of me reading any further, I bet I can figure out what you are going to do. You are going to backstep on what you said before. You and Gayle always pick and choose when you want to stand behind something you said before.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2007, 06:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Steve is trying to distort Edward's meaning, plain and simple, because he hates Edwards. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, once again Gayle requests that we do as she says, not as she does. It is OK for Gayle to say Steve "hates" someone, but it is never OK for anyone to say Gayle "hates" someone.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2007, 06:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He is talking SPECIFICALLY about gays. <hr /></blockquote> What do you think he would have said if someone said, "would be comfortable having a fairy tale read to his second-grader that ends with an adult raping a toddler and living happily ever after," that is part of the information (horribly sick information) of the world also isn't it? I mean that is something in the news right now. Do you think he would want his child privy to "all" the information now? No, I don't think so. If he did not want to be called out on his remark (in which he chuckled) then he should not have made it.

I understand that the scenario I gave was drastically different and would be an easy answer of NO but Edwards thought it was a laughing matter and said he wants his second grader to hear all the info. It would be nice for people to begin questioning these candidates specifically on their remarks instead of letting them go by and then we have to listen to those here on the board trying foolishly to defend the statement.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2007, 06:35 AM
Gayle definitely enjoys being the gutter trash of the board. You should read some of the hate speech she has poured on this board.

eg8r &lt;~~~this is the first board where the most vile and disgusting on the board is a female

Qtec
10-02-2007, 07:35 AM
Oh yeah, [ QUOTE ]
two men kissing and living happily ever after, <hr /></blockquote> is the same as [ QUOTE ]
an adult raping a toddler and living happily ever after <hr /></blockquote>

LOL You are becoming hysterical eg8r.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-02-2007, 07:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">
So Edwards the parent thinks it's best to allow his children to make their own choices. Would he feel the same way as President if Congress disagreed with him over any subject? Would he think the Republicans should be able to go against his personal wishes? <font color="blue">Oh, does this mean you think the president should dictate what the Congress may and may not think? </font color> Or would he use his authority to impose his beliefs on them, or on the American people? <font color="blue"> Jeeze, so you think the job of the president is to impose his beliefs on the Congress, and the American people? I can hardly believe what I'm reading here! </font color> <font color="blue"> Unlike you, I will attempt to answer your questions. A good president works toward compromises with the Congress, unlike Bush, who completely ignores the will of the people, and the Constitutional duty of the Congress to provide oversight, and to be fully informed with truthful intelligence, and particularly in the case of sending our troops into battle. This paragraph seems to suggest that you approve of the illegal methods used throughout the Bush administration's path to war. Wasn't the cry of the right that Democrats voted for the war, too? However, they voted according to what they had been told by Bush, Cheney and Rice, all lies which they created. Have you read anything about how they did it? Do you recall the big sunday morning propaganda party, with Cheney, and Rice, spreading lies on every sunday morning talk show. "We know he has WMD, nerve gas, We know where it is, in southern Iraq, and he has the ability to attack us." He lied. I'd be disappointed in any Cngress that wasn't greatly concerned over that stated Intelligence, but unfortunately, as has been proven by many many who have left government and Military service in protest of their dishonest tactics, they lied to us all, including the Congress of the United States Of America. Is this what you call leadership? Were Republicans "Leading" our country when they blocked all investigations which would expose the lies and incompetence? Maybe you think what they did was right, I don't. We are now STUCK in the sand, and hundreds of thousands DEAD, because of Bush's LIES. So Authoritarianism, wrought with the idea that the ends justify the means, is dangerous, devastating and not leadership at all, but dictatorship. </font color>
</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> </font color> <font color="blue">BULL! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Steve doesn't hate Edwards. Steve has a very low opinion of the man who made millions off of the poor, and then tells them he is on their side. <font color="blue">Proof please. </font color> He is an ambulance chasing shyster lawyer <font color="blue">So you're accusing him of taking money from clients, and then failing to represent his clients? Not what I have read at all.</font color> who is on whichever side can make him the most money. <font color="blue">Too funny, coming from a man who voted for Bush. All lawyers are out to make money, and butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. What else is new? Wasn't Edwards in New Orleans, raising money for the Katrina Victims? Building houses? Donating his time and money for the cause? What did Bush do? More no bid contracts for Halliburton, instead of hiring the residents, and paying them to re-build their own city. </font color> As a Senator, he was a complete failure...hardly my idea of Presidential material. <font color="blue">but Bush WAS your idea of presidential material? Ha ha ha...forgive me if I find your ability to see through candidates a bit suspect. </font color>


</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Wolfe accused me of making comparisons, which I have not done. <font color="blue">Baloney, you were comparing Edwards, as a father, to Edwards as a candidate for president, and/or, as a president. I'm simply pointing out that you have two different standards for that judgement, one for Republicans, and quite a higher standard for Democrats. I guess had he been drunk till forty, he'd deserve your approval? </font color> You agreed, which makes you wrong. <font color="blue">You are wrong, Wolf and I are right. You WERE comparing fatherhood, to presidential leadership, all on the strength of ONE, aspect of Edward's parenting tools, and then suggesting that parenting skills are the standard of leadership ability. Two completely different sets of tools required. </font color> Then you start making the comparisons yourself. The thread wasn't about anyone other than Edwards until you started bringing up this kind of crap. </font color> <font color="blue">I know what your thread was about, and it was based on false assumptions, a weak premise, and illogical conclusions. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, for purposes of discussion, I would prefer to stick to the facts.
</font color> <font color="blue">The fact is you were making comparisons, parenthood, and presidential and leadership ability. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Gayle wrote:
If you ever meet any blue collar workers who work at the Senate Office Building, just ask them what they think of John McCain.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Again, you bring up someone else to make your arguement that your guy isn't any worse than someone else. <font color="blue">OMG, so you think McCain is my guy? Bwa ha ha ha...just who is the "My Guy" to whom you are referring? </font color> It just isn't much of an arguement with me, since I don't hold McCain in the highest esteem either. <font color="blue">If you didn't understand what I wrote, that's not my fault. I certainly wasn't defending McCain, nor was I serving him up as a good example of good presidential material. </font color> </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Knowledge of facts is another plus. Try getting yours straight. Don't put words in my mouth, and try sticking to the point rather than bringing in all your strawman arguements. </font color> <font color="blue">Try grasping the meaning of your own written text, and then taking responsibility for what you wrote. I didn't put words in your mouth, and you didn't put facts in your text.

Gayle in Md. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
10-02-2007, 07:49 AM
Drop wrote: [ QUOTE ]

Now what we have here,is an example of hard wiring to avoid thinking. I'm sure it won't be long,before we discover the "Faith" gene,that will explain true believers,willing to die for someone else's psychosis,like the Christians,that volunteered to be eaten by lions. <font color="red">Hey friend, believe it or not, Wolf posted the documentation on that some time ago, you must have missed it, they have already found in brain scan and such, that very evidence! LMAO. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif </font color> They probably all went to Hell,for committing suicide. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
10-02-2007, 07:54 AM
Becoming hysterical? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
10-02-2007, 08:44 AM
I did not say they were the same thing as a matter of fact I even stated mine was an exaggeration. Your comprehension is failing you. What I said was they were both widely available types of "information" in today's society.

I am hysterical for pointing out reality and you are a buffoon for missing the point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Does that make you feel better?

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2007, 08:45 AM
Q watch out, my stalker is following you now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
10-02-2007, 06:10 PM
Gayle,
I could address this post sentence by sentence, as I have done in the past, but you just close your eyes, bury your head in the sand and refuse to try to comprehend what is actually being said. I will not waste my time.

John Edwards has been one of the worst Senators this state has ever seen. Interesting, when he ran for VP with Kerry, he couldn't even help his team carry his home state. Seems that most of us who have seen him up close understand that the campaign talk has no connection with the reality.
Vote for whoever the hell you want. It's your right. But should this man somehow end up in the oval office, prepare yourself. It won't be pretty.
Steve

Bobbyrx
10-03-2007, 11:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I recall back in the late fifties, the father of my best girl friend, who lived across the street, came to our door one night with a baseball bat in his hand, raging, and yelling. The first black family had moved into the neighborhood, and her Dad had come over to get my Dad to go with him, and a few other neighbors, to "Stone" them out.
<font color="red">What was it like living across the street from Robert Byrd? </font color>
I think it's a disgrace the way the Republican Party has joined with the religious right to destroy the social progress our country had made regarding women's rights, acceptance and tolerance of gays, and the plight of the poverty strickened, often people of color, which they often paint as lazy and undeserving of help, even when they are in desperate circumstances left over from a natural disaster.
<font color="red">Could you please give an example of what you are talking about.....it's sounds like you are calling ALL Christians and Republicans racists,homophobes, or worse....... </font color>
Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

SKennedy
10-03-2007, 12:07 PM
This southern christian republican abhors racism, as any true christian would. A young man who is on the waiting list to get into a college dorm is staying with us. No charge! And he's black. I probably have neighbors mad at me! There are still racist folks aout there, but each generation appears to be less so than the previous. My children are not racist. But, we all still have some prejudices. Don't we Gayle?

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 12:40 PM
And I suppose you approve of Lindsey Graham? He's been nothing but a puppet for Bush. He's voted against every single bill that would have helped our troops. He's stood up there and lied over and over. He's one of the "closet" Republicans that all of Washington wispers about, too, along with Craig, who's been a known pervert for years, not because he's gay, but because of his methods, and denials, when everybody already knows. A coward, who votes against hate crime bill, and hides behind his wedding ring.



/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
10-03-2007, 12:45 PM
I believe when Gayle uses the term "Republican Party" she is referring, as I do, just to the robber Barons, gang of four, ...or some unprintable name for the group in charge, that have even turned their backs on the precepts upon which the party was founded
The original 5:
A set of five moral rules, dating to the origins and common to almost all. They are:(1) not to kill or injure living creatures; (2) not to take what has not been given; (3) to avoid misconduct in sensual matters; (4) to abstain from false speech; (5) not to take intoxicants.
And the added three:
(6) eating at the wrong time; (7) dancing, singing, music, watching shows, wearing garlands, perfumes, cosmetics, and personal adornments; (8) use of high seats or beds.
Plus, and perhaps, most important, except for the unust taking of human lives.....
(9) accepting gold or silver.
#'s 1,2,3,4,5.....and especially #9...have all been put aside by these non-Christian, Christians.
I'm circulating a demand, which I hope that you will sign, for the house of UnAmerican Activities to investigate Bush and his Cabinet.....

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> And I suppose you approve of Lindsey Graham? He's been nothing but a puppet for Bush. He's voted against every single bill that would have helped our troops. He's stood up there and lied over and over. He's one of the "closet" Republicans that all of Washington wispers about, too, along with Craig, who's been a known pervert for years, not because he's gay, but because of his methods, and denials, when everybody already knows. A coward, who votes against hate crime bill, and hides behind his wedding ring.



/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Damn. Talk about changing the subject.

He asked: Do you lump all Christains together as rascists? It sems that way to me. Or do you simply refer to this nebulous entity known as The Religious Right? If so, who do you think makes up that group? Atheists?

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 01:12 PM
You can't live your life without making value judgements. Forcing your view about gay marriage, on your kids, is not what I call responsible parenting, unless you're teaching them to be accepting, tolerant, and compasionate. Edwards stated that he wasn't comfortable with the term Gay Marriage. To me, it's a sign of good parenting. You can tell your kids how you honestly feel about things, but you don't insist that they agree with you, or force them to apply your beliefs, in their life choices.

Teaching your children how to determine what is in their own best interests, and choose their behavior accordingly, is what good parents do. When the society they live in has moved beyond discriminating against gays, and grown to accept their plight as a phenomena of nature, and you use religious dogma to justify punishing people because they're different, you have pushed them toward hatred and bigotry, and away from love, tolerance and acceptance.

Some people mistakenly think that if they display acceptance of Gays as parents, their children might become Gay. I submit that this is completely absurd. Just like some people think that if they do not discriminate against blacks, their kids might marry one. That, IMO is pure ignorance.

My parents always taught tolerance. We were taught to have compassion for those who were not as financially blessed as we were. Understanding for others. My Dad and Mom, both used to say about Gays, "They can't help the way they were made." Science proves that to be true, but religious dogma, says otherwise. There are, IMO, many wasy in which mankind is hurt by religious dogma, and biblical interpretations. Those ways are the bedrock of sexual discrimination, racism, and homophobia. It's all right there in the bible. Does that encourage happier people, a better world, the end of wars and strife? I don't think so.


If you are suggesting that I am predjudice against Republicans, I beg to differ with you. I praise some Republicans, and I am critical of some Democrats. War profiteering by those who lauch wars, in their own financial intersts, on lies, are pigs. Period. Any President who slashes away at our Constitution, should be impeached for failing to protect it. No President of my lifetime, has committed the grievious criminal acts that George Bush has committed. IMO, treason, should be abhorred, and he deserves all the hatred he has reaped from the world. He is THE most hated man in American history, and he has earned every bit of it. Now, you can accuse me of bigotry, or not, it really doesn't matter, what matters to me is that I've taken the time to study his offenses, just as I've taken the time to follow the money behind his war policy, and those of the right wing neocon hawks, and I'm telling you, this war was launched for the financial benefit of the elitists right wing neocon hawks, and I can prove it, and have written about it on this board for years. Further, I dare say, if you or any of my attackers could see what I see, weekly, at Walter Reed, I asure you, as an American, you'd be damned angry about it.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.



Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
10-03-2007, 01:32 PM
You're to be congratulated for doing that!! Nice gesture on your part, especially going up against the neighbor's prejudices.
And if the neighbors give you a hard time...I'll send my brother down there to straighten them out...he's a hit man in training.....also a certified radical right winger...makes Ed look like a Liberal...and his religious views are consistent with Torquemada's. But, if you need his services, you'll have to hurry, because I'm trying to get the rest of the family to agree to have him institutionalized.
Here's an example of what I endure daily:
"...you have to ask yourself, if this thing is all about the Bush family and their rich Texan oil friends, then why didn't Bush 1 just roll on into Iraq and take it over back in 1990?"
I had to explain it to him that while GW isn't that smart, George Sr. wasn't that dumb....

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 02:13 PM
I am referring to the religious fanatics, like Jerry Falwell, and many others like him, who are bilking old people out of their money daily, and spreading hate and guilt to all who want some.

On Lindsey Graham, he's a Senator from South Carolina, that's why I was comparing him, in my post to Steve, to John Edwards.

I don't think Steve minds anything Republicans do, but he accuses everyone else of partisanship. I've been Republican, and Democrat, and change my party according to which party is doing the most damage. I've got cousins, who have voted Republican all their lives, simply because my grand father was once Chairman of the RNC. They wouldn't change party if Republicans were bar-b-q-ing kids under the Dome of the Capital. Now that's what I call partisan. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I don't approve of any religious sect, Christian or otherwise, organizing itself in a political effort. I happen to be disgusted with their pompus attitudes, and their efforts of demonizing others, labeling them sinners, organizing themselve in an effort intrude into the personal lives of others, through political maneuvers to change our laws, and impose their values, upon all others. I don't care who prays, or doesn't pray. I just don't want religion involved in Government. I do not think that is what is best for our country, nor do I think they have any right to dictate, through those efforts, to all others, about personal, private decision, such as abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in the schools. Our schools are public, and we have dozens of different religions in this country. Christians do not have any right to consider their religion, more important than any other religion. If they don't want their children exposed to sex education, for example, then let them put them in a religious school. If they don't approve of abortion, fine, they don't have to get one. If a pharmacist can't fill a prescription for birth control pill, or the day after pill, he's got no business being a pharmacist. He's not there to make value judgements, he's there to fill prescriptions. If they don't agree that gay people should marry, fine, they don't have to attend the wedding. I'm sick and tired of all this religious BS. It does not belong in our political arena, legal or otherwise. This country was founded on the ideal of Separation Of Church and State, period. They want to change history. Organized religion is dangerous, precisely because they always seek to dictate to others. No one has that right. They need to learn how to live, and let live. Not everyone believes in God, or the Bible, or their view of what is right and wrong. That's how this country came to be in the first place. Society needs to back these zealots back into the corner where they belong. I won't keep them from praying, and they shouldn't try to take charge of my womb. It's mine, and they have no business what I do with it. If I rape a young boy, that's a different thing entirely, but if a woman does not wish to complete a full term pregnancy, that is her busines, and hers alone. The gaol of the religious right, is to dictate to others what they may, and may not do, and in everything from the womb, to the prescription counter, they want to dictate. Completely wrong headed, and will lead to nothing more more strife, and suffering for society as a whole, in the long run.

Idealism, untempered by practicality, is folly.

The minute someone starts preaching to me, they've lost their credibility, forever.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
10-03-2007, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> If I rape a young boy, that's a different thing entirely,Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Gayle,

Why is that different? What, outside religeon and the laws founded upon their teachings, says that your raping of that young boy is wrong? If sex is fine between two adult males, how low do we go in age to say it's now not o.k.? We know the some faiths feel it is o.k. for person to get married at a very early age and in some cases several to one man. If everything is "live and let live" how will you define what is out of bounds? Now, you and I may agree that a 12 year old girl is too young for a sexual relationship but what, other than that feeling, is there to support that in secular terms?

Why should Fred Brown not have a third wife?

By the way, I don't want to take charge of your womb. Never have, never will. That's Ed's job. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 03:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I am referring to the religious fanatics, like Jerry Falwell, and many others like him, who are bilking old people out of their money daily, and spreading hate and guilt to all who want some.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ole Jer was not all bad:

<font color="red"> The story was never told about his compassionate heart, his gentle spirit, his enormous sense of humor, and the millions he invested in helping the underprivileged. Jerry founded the Elim Home for alcoholics, the Center for tutoring inner city children, the Hope Aglow ministry for prisoners, Liberty Godparent Home for unwed mothers, and literally dozens of other compassion projects to help the poor, the sick, and others in desperate need.

</font color>

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Deeman,
You believe, as you have told me, that all conscience, all human empathy, all compassion, was derived from religion. That huge difference in the way we have studied, and what we believe about how the human species developed its ability to empathize, how it survived, due to that ability, and how the social rules and expectations that human beings enforced in their many, and varied societies, would probably render any attempt at answering your question, pointless, due to those differences.

The Ascent Of Man, for example, suggests human compassion existed oong before any churches, or religions. Even chimps have been known to provide assistance, and loving attention to one another. I don't think any of them ever attended church, although some say one is presently leading our country. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

In today's world, we have had in place legal prohibitions for the protection of our children as regards their freedom from sexual exploitation. As far as I know, only a Religion based organization, allows otherwise.

I should have said ones womb.

Ed who? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 03:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't approve of any religious sect, Christian or otherwise, organizing itself in a political effort. <hr /></blockquote>

They have just as much right to organize as anybody else don't they?

They have just as much right as the gays, the farmers, the truck drivers, or the toad lickers.

Just because you don't agree with them does not mean they do not have a right to organize to pursue a political agenda. Isn't that how most things change, by folks who organize and clamor for change?

Gayle, you seem to have a lot of disdain for religious people. Did you used to get beat up by a bunch of kids carrying Bibles or something?

Do you think God is pleased by you lumping these people all together and then spewing venom at them?

Oops sorry. I am bordering on preaching and I know how you hate that.

You seem to hate a lot of things actually. You need to let go of that.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 03:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> In today's world, we have had in place legal prohibitions for the protection of our children as regards their freedom from sexual exploitation. As far as I know, only a Religion based organization, allows otherwise.

<hr /></blockquote>

Islam right?

Do I get a prize?

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2007, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

Even chimps have been known to provide assistance, and loving attention to one another. I don't think any of them ever attended church, <hr /></blockquote>

they also kill babies

http://www.primates.com/chimps/drunk-n-disorderly.html

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 03:19 PM
Yeah, and took a slice out of every single one of them. He lived like a millionaire. So do all the rest of them. They own huge parcels of real estate, have servants, and have never worked an honest day's work in their lives.

We shouldn't probably discuss religion. We'll never agree about these charletons. Jerry Falwell turned my stomach. Repulsion is the appropriate resonse to evil people. By my standards, a salesman is a salesman. Nothing worng with being a salesman, as long as you notify the buyer that you are selling something for profit.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 04:05 PM
They have just as much right to organize as anybody else don't they?

<font color="red">Not when they pretend to be non profit making enterprises exempt from pay taxes. </font color>

They have just as much right as the gays, the farmers, the truck drivers, or the toad lickers.

<font color="red">None of those groups are trying to organized to end organize religion, or prevent them from praying, having churches, and doing whatever they like. Those who are seeking to demonize portions of our society, and take away their freedom of choice, are the religious political movements, trying to force their philosophy upon others. </font color>

Just because you don't agree with them does not mean they do not have a right to organize to pursue a political agenda. <font color="red">Sorry, they can't do that as a political organization, according to our laws, unless they pay taxes. They don't. </font color> Isn't that how most things change, by folks who organize and clamor for change? <font color="red">Yes, that's how laws are changed. Religion, however, is not a basis for removing the rights of those who are not members of churches, have different beliefs, and subscribe to their onw version of what is right and wrong. Our Government, is to be Separate from our churches, not under their religious dictation. That's how this country was fromed, and that's what we were guaranteed as a people. Separation Of Church And State.</font color>

Gayle, you seem to have a lot of disdain for religious people. <font color="red">I have a lot of disdain for the audacity of anyone who seeks to dictate to others, or demonizes them for having a different point of view. I believe in freedom of choice, not dictatorships. I believe that no man is above our laws, and that no organization is above the law of the land. </font color> Did you used to get beat up by a bunch of kids carrying Bibles or something? <font color="red">My religious views have evolved over the course of my life, and through my studies. I don't just subscribe to any particular belief system, just because all my relatives say that is what to do. Nor did I force any one religious ideal upon my own kids. They were educated about religion, and encouraged to form their own opinions about it. And, since they developed with a sense of autonomy, and high self-esteem, they were never influenced by peer pressure, so other lifestyles, other opinions, and other cultures, were of no threat, and no concern. They don't required agreement in order to feel correct in their beliefs, unlike most militant religious people I've known over the course of my life. </font color>

Do you think God is pleased by you lumping these people all together and then spewing venom at them? <font color="red">I think my God is happy with me. I don't lump people together. I honor those who earn my respect. Dictating to others, exploiting others, and demonizing others for being different, does not get you a gold star in my world. He's got enough sense to realize that I'm defending all his children, not attacking those who were demonized by a bunch of men who wrote gossip down in a book thousands of years ago. My God isn't against thinking for yourself, or speaking against those who seek to slander others because they are different. "Take what you want, and pay for it" say's my God; not follow the false God's among you. </font color>

Oops sorry. I am bordering on preaching and I know how you hate that.

You seem to hate a lot of things actually. You need to let go of that.

<font color="red">I don't hate anyone, I hate the things they say and do. Hate only hurts the one who carries it. I love myself, and my life, too much for that. I hate it when people hurt other people, or animals, or even insects, well, some of the insects, lol, but that's what I hate. So far, though, insects are the only confusing issue. You righties seem to have disapproval, and hate all mixed up. Hate is when you angle to hurt people. I don't do that. hate is when you seriously wish them disaster, I don't do that either, I know in time, the Gods, will take care of that. My goal is to work toward, no retaliation, that's why sometimes, I have to resort to Total Ignore. WE all have our religious beliefs, and some don't call it God. I think it's ridiculous that so many people have had to die, because they don't agree about who and what God is. How very absurd! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Here we are still arguing about that, after thousands of years. why can't people just agree to leave one another alone about the whole God thing. Wouldn't this world be a better place? How many wars could have been avoided, live and let live, believe what you want, and stay out of my personal affairs, that's my motto, and I personally believe it is much more Godly than Jerry Falwell's, and a lot of other self-described religious God fearing people. No God, seeks to have his children FEAR Him. No God I could embrace, anyway. Organized religion spews dogma which I personally find repugnant, and evil on it's face.

Does Your God tell you that gays are sinners? Does he tell you that your wife must submit, obey, walk in your shadow? Does He tell you that birth control is against His wishes? Does he say that when the world is eating itself alive from overpopulation, keep on having babies till they're falling from the rooftops? Does He tell you an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? but then turn right around and say turn the other cheek? Is George Bush turning the other cheek? Which one of these Gods was talking to him? You think God wants him to torture people? bomb their country to bits, kill women and children, all just in case there might be a risk up the line somewhere/

Pahleeeeze! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif</font color>

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
10-03-2007, 04:05 PM
"Even chimps have been known to provide assistance"
Now there you go again....working GWB into you post
But for the record, he has never assisted anyone....

SKennedy
10-03-2007, 04:35 PM
Seriously, my neighbors don't care. And if they do, they know better than to say anything to me. We're so open minded we even allowed 2 sisters to live across the street from us and they were both democrats (they have since moved). Now my other neighbor is a very conservative (like me) retired full-bird Colonel from the Marine Corps. They are all great neighbors and we appreciate each other.

wolfdancer
10-03-2007, 05:00 PM
And thank God (no pun intended) that Religious groups can't be both political and tax free.That not only keeps the Pope and the Jerry Falwell's from dictating policy....but keeps the carpets free from goat entrails...

pooltchr
10-03-2007, 05:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't lump people together. Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>
Except for Southerners, Christians, and Republicans. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Steve

pooltchr
10-03-2007, 05:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> And I suppose you approve of Lindsey Graham?


/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Here you go again, making assumptions, and being wrong again. Here's a little geography lesson for you. The South is not all one big redneck state, and North Carolina and South Carolina are two separate states. I live in one, and Lindsey Graham is from another. And no, I don't approve of him at all. I can't believe he keeps getting elected...but since he is from a DIFFERENT state, I can't do much about it.
Steve

pooltchr
10-03-2007, 05:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I don't think Steve minds anything Republicans do,
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

And again, you make a statement of which you have no knowledge. If you had taken time to read some of my posts, I have frequently expressed my concern with the liberal ways of many so called conservatives. The republican party has moved way too far to the left for my taste. But you wouldn't remember reading any of that.

You were, however, absolutely correct with the first 3 words in the quote above. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 06:17 PM
BWA HA HA HA! What the hell would I do without you! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
What a scream! You'd fit right in around here my friend!

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
10-03-2007, 07:00 PM
Then who is it? Jeff Sessions? I always get those two mixed up. Maybe it's because they look like a couple! But then, I can't ever remember if you're from NC, or SC. I thought it was NC. Who cares?

Yeah, I'm always wrong. Gee, can't believe they're two different states though! Wow, all these years and I had to get to sixty-two to learn that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

My family has owned property in North Carolina for decades, Steve. Since the fifties, after Hazel hit. I love going down there, Oak Island, as it's called now, but back then it was called Long Beach. I love the people down there, too. Good people. They can't cook seafood, though. Don't have a clue about what a crab cake is all about. Myrtle Beach, too.



Believe it or not, I have Christian friends, too. Most of my friends are polished enough, that they don't talk about religion when socializing. They don't wear that pompus, holier than thou, collar around their dialog, either, like the Republican Party does. I don't like that in people, or politicians, and especially politicians. I thought Hillary's answer about religion was perfect. She said she was brought up to believe that you didn't wear your religion on your sleve. That it was a private matter. I subscribe to that same philosophy. I think it is a private matter. I don't think ones feeling about God, the Gods, or spiritual matters in general, are genuine, when people use them for exploitation. I think that's what Republicans have brought to politics, an exploitation of the faithful. That turns me off. Sorry, can't do a thing about it. Don't trust preachers, either. Are they all bad, no, they're not. I speak in general terms. the things I write, are not supposed to include every single person in any group, just the media types, high profile ones, and the politicians. Yeah, I think those christians in the South bought into George Bush hook, line and sinker, and did so because of his religious lip service, and that is how I feel about him, and them. And I think they're completely wrong, to endeavor to dictate, according to their personal religious beliefs. Shoot me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
10-04-2007, 07:37 AM
Exactly. I guess gayle doesn't even read her own garbage.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
10-04-2007, 09:41 AM
Is is me, or did the answer sound like someone running for office??

moblsv
10-04-2007, 10:29 AM
Here's something I thought you might like to read.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

The introduction:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Introduction_links.pdf

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 10:35 AM
WOW.... thank you.

Love,
Gayle

Deeman3
10-04-2007, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,
You believe, as you have told me, that all conscience, all human empathy, all compassion, was derived from religion. That huge difference in the way we have studied, and what we believe about how the human species developed its ability to empathize, how it survived, due to that ability, and how the social rules and expectations that human beings enforced in their many, and varied societies, would probably render any attempt at answering your question, pointless, due to those differences.

The Ascent Of Man, for example, suggests human compassion existed oong before any churches, or religions. Even chimps have been known to provide assistance, and loving attention to one another. I don't think any of them ever attended church, although some say one is presently leading our country. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <font color="blue">

There may have been some compassion in early man, at least witin the tribe. However, to feel they did not base that on a belief in things not terrestial is a big leap. Early man was probably much more faith based than we are today. The ascent of man probably included war and killing over territory outise the tribe or clans and rape, survival of the fittest even among the tightest groups. I know secular TV broadcasts don't often show this in support of their need to diminish faith but this simply does not fit the real history we see. In addition, while you appaude the secular world, you ignore the atrocities of even the recent past in those same societies, such as Soviet Russia and other cultures where God has been minimised. </font color>

In today's world, we have had in place legal prohibitions for the protection of our children as regards their freedom from sexual exploitation. <font color="blue">Legal prohibitions based on law derived from rights and wrongs established by religeons in the past. </font color> As far as I know, only a Religion based organization, allows otherwise. <font color="blue">
Then you have ignored all the cases where sexual abuse in many societies takes place because there are no adequate laws to protect women and children mostly because a spotlight is shown on the few cases were organized religoen is out of control simply because we are able to examine and show them for their abuse. How about the millions abused each day where the perpetrator has no religeon and the millions in coutries where it occurs but the law does not address it, China, Burma, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Africa, many of whom have religeaon but the separation of the Church and State are so much, these are not even concerns at a local level?

Even the great philosophical minds of the past did not dwell on these issues that are so critical to us today but upon the process of thought and of self. In a true secular world, there is little right and wrong unless defined by a belief in a higher power. You can reject a faith and even protest that there is no God in any context but to say that the secular world, on it's own defined our guiding principals is simply fitting the world to your point of view. </font color>

I should have said ones womb. <font color="blue"> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Ed who? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Eg8, your secret admirer, of course...JK </font color>

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 11:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">There may have been some compassion in early man, at least witin the tribe. However, to feel they did not base that on a belief in things not terrestial is a big leap. <font color="red">?????????? How so? There were certainly no churches, preachers, pastors, I'd say it was pretty much a time of pure survival, and uneducated, automatic emotional responses, wouldn't you? We're speaking of Organized Religion? </font color> Early man was probably much more faith based than we are today. <font color="red">The cave men drew pictures of animals, and nature, the sun, and was awed by the unpredictable forces of nature, but no organized religion, that I know of, and now drawing of heavenly creatures, with human charateristics. </font color> The ascent of man probably included war and killing over territory outise the tribe or clans and rape, survival of the fittest even among the tightest groups. <font color="red">We're seeing much more of those phenomena today, I believe. </font color> I know secular TV broadcasts don't often show this in support of their need to diminish faith <font color="red">Does Science diminish faith, or does faith diminish science? I say it is opposite from your suggestion. Science is a search for facts, through trial and error experimentation, and discovery of tangible objects. It doesn't seek to diminish anything, traditionally. </font color> but this simply does not fit the real history we see. <font color="red">Of what history do you speak? The history I have studied provides a wealth of documentation suggesting most killing and war resulted from man's historical argument over who's God, was The God, and organized religion at the core throughout, and still to this day.</font color> In addition, while you appaude the secular world, <font color="red">That isn't true. I don't seek to exclude religion completely from the world, just that it does not intrude itself into our Government, or our private, personal lives. I'm perfectly in agreement that people should be allowed to believe what they wish, jut no endeavor to seek authority to impose their religious views, into my private life, or into my Government. </font color> you ignore the atrocities of even the recent past in those same societies, <font color="red">As I understand it there were plenty of organized religions in Russia, and in Germany, and in fact, in some cases they were used on behalf of those atrocities. </font color> such as Soviet Russia and other cultures where God has been minimised.

<font color="red">I submit to you that God, isn't the issue here, but Organized Religion, which has been present in most all wars and atrocities, and is, in fact, at the heart of the war in which our soldiers are now dying. If organized religion is so valuable, why is it present in so much wrong doing? Often, even at the core of the atrocities of which you speak?

Gayle in Md.</font color>
</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 12:12 PM
Where is the bible belt? Republicans formerly could not win the south. The stated thrust of Karl Rove's election policy was to get the south, through Evangelical, and Christain support. Organized Religion. Falwell organized the Christian Coalition, as a political force, in the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, prevent acceptence of homosexual rights, and restore prayer in the public school system, which encompases many Children, from many different Religious sects, and also agnostics and athiests, and financed with tax dollars from all. It was a southern, Christian, Republican movement from the start. You call it lumping, I call it history.

Our country was founded on Separation Of Church and State. Therefore, organizing a religious movement as a political force, in the effort to dictate those religious views, upon all, through our state and federal courts system, does not our Consitutional requirements, nor does it agree with the stated wishes of the founders of our country, who were in favor of religious freedom, to worship, or not worship, as one choses, and a "Complete, and perfect separation of both, lest they will both be threatened." James Madison

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2007, 12:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

The history I have studied provides a wealth of documentation suggesting most killing and war resulted from man's historical argument over who's God, was The God, and organized religion at the core throughout, <hr /></blockquote>

This has been repeated often enough that some people accept it as fact.

Actually most wars have been fought over land, money, and power, pretty much in that order.

There have been wars fought over religion but of those, there have been many more started by non-Christains than by Christians.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2007, 12:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Our country was founded on Separation Of Church and State. <hr /></blockquote>

No it wasn't. The country was founded on the concept of liberty.

Jefferson mentioned a wall between church and state in his writings and people like you have latched on to it like a pit bull latches onto a pork chop.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 12:31 PM
I don't agree. The Crusades, many military expeditions, were undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th 12th and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims. While the acquisition of land may be included in Christian wars, and muslim, and many other religious based wars, they were religious based, and organized religion was at the heart of the effort.

Today, we are in a war, based on religous differences, as we all know, which involves the acquisition of land.

The wars between Isreal and their neighbors, also wars over land, religious based.

I believe many of the "Land Wars" to which you refer, were religious based. And, in fact, as you included "Power" ion your statement, I submit that also, includes the effort to attain religious power, through the acquisition of land and money.

As we write, the Sunni and Shiia, are fighting for power, also based upon tribal religious differences. The Arabe world is laden with thesse religious based wars to this day.

Organized religion, is the basis in far more wars, over history, than not.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2007, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't agree. The Crusades, many military expeditions, were undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th 12th and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims. While the acquisition of land may be included in Christian wars, and muslim, and many other religious based wars, they were religious based, and organized religion was at the heart of the effort.

Today, we are in a war, based on religous differences, as we all know, which involves the acquisition of land.

The wars between Isreal and their neighbors, also wars over land, religious based.

I believe many of the "Land Wars" to which you refer, were religious based. And, in fact, as you included "Power" ion your statement, I submit that also, includes the effort to attain religious power, through the acquisition of land and money.

As we write, the Sunni and Shiia, are fighting for power, also based upon tribal religious differences. The Arabe world is laden with thesse religious based wars to this day.

Organized religion, is the basis in far more wars, over history, than not.

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

That hardly covers the thousands of wars that have been fought.

The largest wars, WWI and WWII, were not about religion at all.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 01:18 PM
You're comparing to two wars, fought in the combined time span of under fifty years, to wars that lasted for three centuries?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

And' we're presently in a Religious based war as we write, wrought with religious grudes across the continent?

Have you also forgotten the wars in Ireland? The history of England, Scottland, and many other countries?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2007, 02:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You're comparing to two wars, fought in the combined time span of under fifty years, to wars that lasted for three centuries?

<hr /></blockquote>



They also accounted for most of the deaths that have occured in wars thru the ages

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
And' we're presently in a Religious based war as we write, wrought with religious grudes across the continent?

<hr /></blockquote>

I thought it was about oil and profiteering.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Have you also forgotten the wars in Ireland? The history of England, Scottland, and many other countries?
<hr /></blockquote>

Those were about land, not religion. It so happened that the Catholics were the minority and were oppressed by the Protestants. I guess in that regard you could say it was about religion. But it just so happened that the Catholics were the native people, which had nothing to do with their religion, and did not appreciate the English pushing them around. So in that regard it was about power and money.

They could just as easily have been black Protestants and the same trouble would have started.

I might start a new thread about this.

I am just sick and tired of this mantra that people say over and over that religion has caused more wars than anything.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2007, 03:49 PM
You are quite wrong my friend. People came to this country in search of freedom from religious opression. Our framers, and their writings, gauranteed Separation Of church And State. Their letters, and statements, give proof that that was their intention, and to state that freedon and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, did not address freedom from religious persecution is a bastardation of those meanings. They came to escape religious persecution, period. Hence, the term, Separation Of Church and State, was included in great debate throughout their efforts to forge the Constitution Of The United States Of America, and laws were imposed upon religious organization regarding their tax obligations, or lack thereof.

"The separation must be complete and perfect,....

Thomas Jefferson

wolfdancer
10-04-2007, 06:17 PM
Can you really draw a conclusion about the man based on one, possibly misinterpreted remark?
It was the $800 haircut that did it for me....I realized then that he was actually a Republican...

pooltchr
10-04-2007, 07:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Can you really draw a conclusion about the man based on one, possibly misinterpreted remark?
It was the $800 haircut that did it for me....I realized then that he was actually a Republican... <hr /></blockquote>


Now you've gone too far! You can't pawn that joker off on us! We have enough of our own idiots, without having to be responsible for yours too! He's one of yours...accept it and deal with it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

Deeman3
10-05-2007, 07:28 AM
I'm praying for you and Gayle, Wolfdancer... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Calling him a republican, well, maybe .....he does know how to go after the cash...

Gayle in MD
10-05-2007, 08:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What was it like living across the street from Robert Byrd?
<hr /></blockquote>

Well, you just gave me an indication of how old you are, Bobby. This country was full of Mr. Byrd's former opinions back in the day when he made his statements. We didn't have slaves anymore, back when he made those statements, not officially at least, but we were still a nation which discriminated against blacks, but if you're going to snipe at Robert Byrd, include the whole country, because America was completely different in their racial views, back then.
Robert Byrd, and the rest of our country, have grown past those unfair, unamerican attitudes since then, but I assure you, there were plenty of Republicans back then, who shared his views, and Democrats. It was what it was.
[ QUOTE ]
Could you please give an example of what you are talking about.....it's sounds like you are calling ALL Christians and Republicans racists,homophobes, or worse.......
<hr /></blockquote>

Because you're reading it in that way. Go read your bible, you'll find it all in there. Then go study Karl Rove's election strategy. The Republicans ran on Christian values, and those same Christian values, from the bible, include biblical philosophies which support discrimination against blacks, gays and women. I'm speaking of an ideology, which was exploited by Repbulicans, for votes, from people, (Christians) who in some ways are still embracing some of those discriminatory, wrong minded attitudes which you yourself refer to in you slam against Robert Byrd.

It wouldn't hurt to study a bit about Senator Byrd, also. He is known as the greatest defender of our Constitution in the Senate, and one of the most honored statesmen of our times, on both sides, Republican and Democrat. His attendence and precentages of actual votes, cast, is record breaking. His speeches, about the ideals of our country, and the great Constitution which has been the hallmark of our course, are pure genius, and often bring tears to my eyse, because of his obvious love and committment to the higher American Ideals intended by our founders. In fact, he is known, as THE Constitutional Authority. That distinction, for obvious reasons, makes him one of George Bush, and Dick Cheney's frequent targets, and he is ridiculed by many right wing pundits, who aren't meritous enough to shine his shoes.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-05-2007, 09:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> This country was full of Mr. Byrd's former opinions back in the day when he made his statements. ...

Robert Byrd, and the rest of our country, have grown past those unfair, unamerican attitudes since then, ...



It wouldn't hurt to study a bit about Senator Byrd, also. He is known as the greatest defender of our Constitution in the Senate, <hr /></blockquote>

What did you think when your hero went on Tony Snow's Sunday morning TV show and said "there's black niggers and white niggers" about 5 years ago?

He really needs to retire.

Gayle in MD
10-05-2007, 09:57 AM
Five years ago? Are you quite sure?

I couldn't have seen it since Tony Snowjob has never been anything that resembles a journalist of any kind, in my view. I don't watch the paid White House propagandists pundits, nor do I tune in their propaganda Channel.

I haven't heard about the incident your mentioning, at all. In face, most of my knowledge about Senator Byrd is frm watching him on the Senate Floor, and from a fellow I gres up with, who has worked with him for many years, and told me a good deal about him, particularly about how much he has helped the many proverty strickened in his state, black and white.

They held a celebration for placement of his protriat a few days ago. I dare say, Republicans, and Democrats alike, were extremely comlimentary toward him, and recalled many thouching incidents about his statesmanship, and love and knowledge of the constitution. He is considered a Constitutional scholar.

If he did in fact make such a statement, though, given his age and times, I'm disappointed to hear that, however, IIRC, such sentiments were often expressed, as I said, back in the day. And, sometimes our elderly, don't embrace changing attitudes quite as quickly as we would like.

What did you think about Coulter's statements about the Jersey Girls, and the way the Republicans treated them? I've answered your question, so I'm not using her to change the subject, or compare, just interested in your opinion about it.

Gayle in md.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-05-2007, 10:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I haven't heard about the incident your mentioning, at all. In face, most of my knowledge about Senator Byrd is frm watching him on the Senate Floor, <hr /></blockquote>

this should be the video. I can't access youtube from work so I could not watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0&amp;mode=related&amp;search=

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


What did you think about Coulter's statements about the Jersey Girls, <hr /></blockquote>

I don't remember the exact quote but I recall thinking she was out of line.

She says stuff like that to sell books. I think she's a smart woman and people would take her more seriously if she would give her opinion without the venom (sound familiar?). But without the outrageous statements she would not sell as many books. So she will continue to do it as long as it suits her pocketbook.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2007, 08:07 PM
Gayle,

Do you not believe in the miracles Christ performed?

Nathaniel was duly impressed that Jesus saw him under the fig tree

When Jesus heard this he said "You ain't see nuthin yet"

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!


Jhn 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.


Jhn 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.


Jhn 1:50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.


<font color="red"> Jhn 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. </font color>

This is a powerful verse. It struck me when I read it.

Was Nataniel deceived by a TV preacher?

Gayle I wish you would accept Christ as your Savior. My duty is to tell you thst.

If you choose to tell me I'm a fool that is your choice.

God bless you and yours.