Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Virginia,

I appreciate your commentary on Rev. Epp's article. I had not read it when published and your words caused me to look it up in the Gazette's archives. I truly enjoyed Rev Epp's article.

I however disagree with your point. In my opinion, abortion is not a greater evil. It is equal to this unjust war and many other immoral issues going on in this country.

You say, "make our voices heard" in the next election. I'm not certain what you are saying? As Rev. Epp wrote, those same individuals who claim to not believe in abortion are the same pushing for this unjust war. I would take it a step further to say those same people who profess to not believe in abortion have not truly done a single positive thing to lessen the occurrence of abortion.

For many politicians, abortion appears to be more of a talking point to be hauled out during election time. Any true, long-lasting effort such as better birth control education, promotion of adoption agencies or simply helping the poor and uneducated, falls to the wayside after elections. I would add helping the poor, better education funding and improvement in our health care system all fall into that category with some politicians. Those are matters of conscience too, in my opinion.

So I ask you Virginia, are you a one-issue voter? If so, you need to spend a little more time and look at the whole picture including how your candidate truly handles that one issue when the voting public isn't looking. Too many politicians talk a lot about being religious but their actions demonstrate lack of moral conscience.

The true reason for this war, lack of action in Darfur, lack of action for the poor in this country and lack of viable ways to lessen abortion are but some of the examples of this lack of moral conscience I speak. Please don't just settle for someone that only pushes the abortion button.

September 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Thanks, Kstrebuchet!

September 19, 2007 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Ultimately, we all should vote our conscience. While some may not agree with Ms. Pester, I think what she was trying to do was make a call to conscience regarding their vote and the abortion issue. It clearly hit a raw nerve.

Also, Ms. Pester expressed her view that the war in Iraq is immoral and that abortion, in her view, was a greater evil. It's much in keeping with another who spoke out publicly against abortion. Mother Theresa once spoke at a prayer breakfast in this country and said that "abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world." Folks may not like that point of view, but they must come to terms with it. If they disagree, they must state the morality of their view.

I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Americans cast their votes based on one issue. That issue might be war. It might be the economy. It might be taxes. It might be health care. It might be abortion. It might be gay rights. It might be domestic surveillance. It might be the threat of terrorism. Some might even vote for the person they perceive to be the handsomest or most charming. The truth is, that in a country so split down the middle in terms of politics it is usually one issue that sways a voter in the direction of a particular candidate.

I detect a false sense of enlightenment here. I don't think Ms.Pester's vote, whatever it will be, is going to be any less enlightened than yours. I don't think her vote will be any less valid, unless of course, we make some national determination that pro-lifers, being less enlightened, don't have the right to have their votes counted.

I hear lots of folks say that they're not one issue voters. What would they do with a candidate who expressed an anti-war view on one hand and a pro-life view on the other? What would they do with a candidate who was pro-abortion, but also pro Iraq war? What would they do with a candidate who was in lock step with them on every issue except the one that mattered most to them (health care for a senior voter, for example)? I suspect that in most cases enlightenment would give way to self interest or passion over that one issue. I actually believe that's very American.

Finally, the comment about pro-lifers not having done anything to lessen the occurence of abortion is utterly false, a matter of taking the part for the whole. It's true that there are some in the pro-life movement who don't actively pursue alternatives. But, there are many in the movement who work toward adoption, improvements in social welfare, etc.There are millions who truly do care and work to find viable alternatives to abortion.

September 20, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Yes, Kstrebuchet, I was talking about some politicians. Thank you again. :-)

I try to not lump everyone into one category. I am not against pro-lifers as netloafer suggests. As a matter of fact, I support not taking life in abortion, during capital punishment and during war. I guess that makes me a pro-lifer in the total sense.

September 20, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

And, I would like to add, the focus of my commentary was that some politicians pull out the abortion issue at election time.

I suggest that voting for a politician just because they say they are against it may be deceptive.

I suggest that the past 8 years have demonstrated the policians who say they are against abortion have done nothing productive to lessen it. That is why I suggest looking at the whole picture instead of one issue.

September 20, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Virginia Pester: "It troubles me also that more people do not speak out on the evils of this world."

Yes, Virginia, there are evils in this world, and people do indeed speak out on them, but those people don't seem to be getting mass media coverage. I see those opinions every single day. Perhaps I read different journals, essays, books, and news magazines, but I see many, many opinions out there that are worth savoring.

What troubles me, to borrow your phrase, is the idea of condensing those many evils down to one pure evil. To do so would be to oversimplify this complex world we live in. Condensing is to remove subjectivity. What is important to an American, for example, may not mean a rat's rear end to the parent of a starving child in Africa who has not used abortion as a means of birth control, but must still deal with the end result -- a dead baby.

September 20, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

This is what Ms. Dorsey said:

"I would take it a step further to say those same people who profess to not believe in abortion have not truly done a single positive thing to lessen the occurrence of abortion."

I think it would take a stretch to say that "those same people" was directed at politicians rather than voters like Ms. Pester.

I too read Rev.Epp's piece. It wasn't directed at politicians and their machinations. It was aimed at the rest of us. He claimed that 9-11 silenced our moral voices and clouded our response. It was quite eloquent. Now, you and I may differ on his conclusions, but I think we'd have to agree that he wasn't aiming it directly at the politicians. In a sense he was asking us to do the same thing that Ms. Pester was - to use our morality and conscience as a guide.

Look, there's a lot of deception in politics. I see it on all sides of these issues. Those who play to the pro-life voters for political gain are no different than those pro-abortion politicians who play to their base.

I still believe that there is a false sense of objectivity here.

Let me ask the question again. Would you vote for a pro-abortion candidate because he/she was against the Iraq war or would you vote against a pro-life candidate who supported the war? Let me ask another one. Would you have even commented if Ms. Pester had said that the war was a greater evil than abortion and that people should vote their conscience on the matter accordingly?

Ms. Pester was positing her priorities. She would vote for a candidate who was pro-life, believing that abortion is a greater evil than the war. I'm not sure how you'd vote, but I think I can safely assume that you have a ladder of issues that are important to you and in a case where a candidate didn't support everything you believed you would choose the highest of your priorities as your guide in the voting booth. In the end, like Ms. Pester, you, I, and everyone else who votes, have something we regard as the primary reason we vote for a candidate. In other words, we all probably vote based on a single issue.

September 20, 2007 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

Well said netloafer.

September 20, 2007 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I do think it makes a significant difference. Ms. Dorsey was attempting to make her argument more compelling by comparing her ability to be "objective" to folks like Ms.Pester who are being portrayed as being "reactionary," having only one issue that motivates them.

I challenge her assumption. She's no more enlightened than Ms. Pester, you, or me. Ms.Pester pushes the abortion button. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ms.Dorsey has a button she pushes as well. Her pretense of objectivity and enlightenment doesn't hold true in my mind.

The moral issues involved in matters or war, social policy, abortion, race relations, etc are immense. Most of us come by our respective positions after thoughtful reflection, prayer, consultation with others, spirited dialogue, etc. I'm sure that Ms.Pester came by hers in the same manner. She's weighed the principles and has come up with what she believes to be a moral position. We may not like the position and should feel free to respond. But I don't think it helps to respond from a platform that assumes that she believes as she does because she is unenlightened or lacking objectivity.

Ms. Dorsey says that she is both pro life and anti war. It sure seems to me that she should have a lot in common with Ms. Pester. I think she would have been much better served to have said something like, "We agree on almost all of this, but we need to find some common ground to bridge the one remaining gap between us. Let's discuss the relative order of these things and work together to solve these problems. Let's work hand in hand and come up with solutions we can all support"

September 20, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, I never said I was more enlightened, objective or anything else you mentioned. I simply stated my opinion regarding politicians use of the abortion button and suggested Mrs. Pester use more frame of reference than abortion in voting for political candidates.

Since you mentioned Mother Theresa, I assume you are Catholic as am I and Mrs. Pester. If you attend Sacred Heart on a regular basis then you will have heard from the pulpit there about not only the immoral issue of abortion but also the Iraq War, lack of attention to Darfur, lack of attention to the poor in the US and worldwide, lack of governmental support for reasonable health care and education, etc.

I think all of these issues must be weighed when making a decision on who to vote for. That was all that I was suggesting. I will add SUGGESTING. I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying this is my point of view, consider it or not.

As for making a decision on a political candidate, I do and will weigh all of the points of view and using that information, make a decision that is right with my moral compass based upon my religious and moral beliefs.

Also, if you're going to refer to me, I would prefer you use the correct spelling of my name Denise D-O-R-C-E-Y.

September 20, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, I also did not say Mrs. Pester pushes the abortion button. What I suggested is that she is listening to the politicians who push the abortion button.

Maybe you are I aren't that far off on our opinions. Either I haven't written this well or you are misreading me.

September 20, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

My apology on the mis-spelling.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but did admire the work of Mother Theresa.

I think the United States has tried to bring attention to the genocide in Darfur, but the United Nations response has been tepid and the janjaweed in the region seem to be able to rape and pillage with impunity. The Chinese have interests in Darfur and Sudan and are going to do whatever they can to block any international solution. Is this the type of thing that qualifies in your mind for military intervention by the United States? If so, what qualifies it - what would make it just?

What should the government do in regard to affordable health care?

What solutions do you recommend to eliminate poverty?

I think Ms. Pester did a good job of saying that both the war and abortion were immoral and that her sense was that abortion was the more immoral of the two. It seems a perfectly legitimate way to think things through. Folks may not agree with it, but it's logically consistent.

I do think that there are a lot of issues one must consider when voting, but I still believe that when all is said and done we vote for the person who has pushed the ONE button that appeals to us most. That's human nature.

I'm not sure, but I think there are some significant gaps in our repsective philosophies.

September 20, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

September 20, 2007 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Thank you again, Kstrebuchet.

I'm just at a place where I'm tired of the negativity in the world. I've realized to find my own peace, I have to let go and let God.

I hope you have a great day!

September 21, 2007 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

I'm not sure where to start. I started reading this yesterday but had to quit.

I find it amusing that abortion is always mingled with religion.

IT IS TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I understand that some religions are "against" abortion. Fine. That doesn't make that religion any more right than my view that if I want an abortion, it's not your decision.....it's mine. If you disagree because of your religion/morality, well, fine....but at the same time, no judgment. It's not moral to judge, remember? So butt out.

Not to mention, the idea that the Iraq War has been compared to abortion is nauseating. But it's not surprising--elections are coming.

And you know what's evil? Judging someone on the basis of his/her beliefs.....which, of course, is contrary to the Bible (some will say) but it happens anyway. Just as it happened in this column.

Besides, abortion will never be outlawed because no one would be able to campaign against it and then forget about it once they win an election.

M

September 21, 2007 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

We probably need to define the difference between judging someone on the basis of his/her beliefs and argumentation. I thought netloafer posed some good questions, but no one answered them. (Yes, yes, including me.) They were rhetorical, yes, but nonetheless thought provoking.

September 21, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

That was my point. I was trying to ask questions about moral frameworks.

I was judging no one. I was asking questions, and create was right.I didn't get any answers other than the types of personal attacks that those who wrote them say they abhor.

This thread began when Ms. Pester's views were dismissed, primarily because it was perceived that she was a one issue person and those like her are gullible and susceptible to demagogues who push the abortion button. What I was trying to point out was that there is not a person on this forum who ultimately doesn;t make these types of decisions based on some heirarchy of ideas, issues, and moral precepts. For example, it's pretty evident to me that there are some here who would not vote for a pro-life candidate, whatever else the candidate believed.

My questions still remain unanswered. I ask them in sincerity. It's one thing to be against another's moral view. It's quite another to state one's own and substantiate it.

As for judging, the Bible is clear on that. But it is also clear that humanity is to be seeking to discern the difference between good and evil. To say that one cannot make these types of discernments without being guilty of judging others is false. I've had major philosphical differences with friends and acquaintances, but I've never, ever put myself in the place of being their judge. I've disagreed, stated my views and why I hold them and they have done the same.

There will come a time when our thoughts and deeds will be weighed (judged) by someone who is far more capable than I. Of that I am certain.

September 21, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...

An article ("The fall of the Godmongers") in today's Chronicle touches upon the subject. In the same fashion of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, humor brings us to the surface of common sense once again.

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

This is not to say abortion and the Iraq mess aren't worthy of discussion (indeed, they are), simply the article highlights how BushCo has unfortunately inserted religion into politics.

Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA

September 21, 2007 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Classical argumentation can be stimulating, especially when attacking the issues and not the person which is a fallacy. I find many of the arguments against the issues very interesting in the forum. If not, I wouldn't return day after day. To argue WITH the person about his/her opinions makes sense to me. To attack the person is using poor reasoning.

Opinions are judgments, interpretations, or preferences that can vary from person to person. They can't be proved. SOME, however, can at least be supported with convincing evidence. But some people support opinions with another opinion. That key won't work and that's when the bears get out of their cages. Some days it gets downright interesting, huh?

September 21, 2007 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...

Indeed, I agree with you "create." As I've said before, those rabid personal attacks (frequently read on this website) accomplish nothing. Only calm discussions will help solutions to prevail.

BP
SF, CA

September 21, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

BP, thanks for the website. Will visit. I have often said that inserting religion into politics serves one thing, and that is to bully everybody into believing one certain way. I am currently reading Jack Cafferty's "It's Getting Ugly Out There" wherein he says, "For 230 years, dissent has been our most powerful and durable proof to the world that our founding fathers' experiment in democracy works."

September 21, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...

Agree! One of my favorite quotes from the article, which exemplifies your point, is: "this is the delightful thing about the fundamentalist worldview (and, for that matter just about any strict religious worldview you can name), the thing that absolutely and forever guarantees its frequent and eventual downfall: It can never be sated."

BP

September 21, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

As a pro-choice person, I would consider a pro-life candidate, assuming their other agendas work for me. My (typical) problem with the pro-life candidate is that it's made into a religious choice/God reason. If they are pro-life because scientifically, they believe life begins at conception....that's the kicker for me. I would even still vote for a pro-life candidate whose basis is religion as long as the rest of their agendas are not. Obviously, GWB had no problem with causing death in war situations even though he is a man of God.

Where am I going with this? Hard to say........I'm on some prescription drugs right now and a little fuzzy, but the point I'm making is that to say that a pro-choice person wouldn't vote for a pro-life person is incorrect. It would/does happen. We aren't all one sided either.

September 21, 2007 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

Finding the right candidates to vote for is easy. Endorsed by the NEA? Vote the other way!

September 21, 2007 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Yes, Kristie, you're exactly right about the way pro-life turns things into religious choices. Once they pull the God-card, I feel like they are saying that I am a non-believer, and that isn't true. If a candidate's every issue is defined through religion, then I won't vote for that person. That smacks of fanaticism. Religion can sometimes become a smoke screen too, and people can become quite emotional. "I know what's best because God is on my side" doesn't work for me.

September 21, 2007 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I want to be sure that I understand this correctly.

You all are saying that you wouldn't vote for a candidate if he based one, some, or all of his platforms on religious belief.

Is that correct?

Let's take the position vis a vis the Iraq war. Are you saying that a religous candidate who takes an anti-war stance is disqualified because he/she bases that position on religious belief?

If that's the case are you saying that the only way a religious candidate would be qualified is if he/she suspended all their beliefs and found secular positions suitable to you?

Are you saying that only religious folk can be fanatical? If so, are you disqualifying yourselves from any chance of being fanatical in your views? I would find that hard to believe. Could it be that there's a chance there are people in these forums who are fanatically opposed to religious belief having any room in the public square?

I can't say it's always the case, but I think it is more often than people care to believe. Some wouldn't vote for a religious candidate no matter what his/her ideas were.

It's much easier to see the splinter in another's eye than it is to see the beam in our own.

One of the things that time has taught me is to support my beliefs with evidence and conviction. I'm aware of my biases and propensities. I'm well aware that my faith is not welcome in public discussion. I have often used classical reasoning - Aristotelian logic, rules of evidence, argumentation, etc, but have still found some who disqualify what I have to say because faith is at the foundation of some of those positions. Some were moral arguments (war, abortion, etc). On what basis have my views been disqualified? Religion. In many cases those opposing had nothing solid to refute my arguments. The only reason they opposed me was for my religious belief.

September 21, 2007 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Actually, I never was.

I have debated for Christianity with Muslim scholars when I lived in New Jersey. I've read some text work on debate and argumentation. But that's as much as I've ever done.

I have my own views and others have theirs. I'm interested in what the foundation of their worldviews is. That's why I ask the questions.

September 21, 2007 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Ks

I didn't take offense. Your "joke" actually went right over my head. I was just answering a question asked.

My questions remain un-answered.

September 22, 2007 at 5:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Are you referring to me, Netloafer?

September 22, 2007 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, you say, "One of the things that time has taught me is to support my beliefs with evidence and conviction."

I can accept evidence as substantiation for your beliefs, but conviction is just another opinion, and supporting an opinion with another opinion doesn't qualify.

What I said is this: "If a candidate's every issue is defined through religion, then I won't vote for that person. That smacks of fanaticism." Of course that's my opinion, but if I start substantiating it with the Fred Phelps types, and the Jerry Falwells and Osama Bin Ladens who do indeed base all their political beliefs on religion, then I'd be taking up too much space.

I won't disqualify you based on your religious slant. You have that right. I simply won't vote for you, and that is my right.

September 22, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I was referring to the comment made by Kstrebuchet about whether or not I was ever a member of a high school debate team. It was meant as a perjorative, but I wasn't offended.

My comment about not having the questions I raised answered was a general comment.

Create

The extremes and extremists are easy targets, aren't they? It's easy to say that one is disqualifying Osama, Fred, or Jerry based on their fanatacism. It's even easier to hold that position based on reasoned examination of the evidence.

Like you, I wouldn't vote for someone like Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Osama bin Laden. I would, however, give careful consideration to someone like Dr. King, who co-opted religion and politics. I believe he was right to do so. Had I lived in 1861 I would have supported Abraham Lincoln, who came to see the scourge of slavery, a moral and religous issue, had to be removed from the nation. I was a vigorous suppoter of Jimmy Cater's candidacy in 1976. His positions stemmed from his Baptist faith, including issues like foreign relations, the economy, etc.

I'd like to think that there's a lot that religion can contribute to the puclic sphere. When great men and women throughout our history stood for or against something it was almost always from a moral/religious base. Their thinking just didn't spring from some great repository of secular thought or nowhere at all.

I came into this forum saying that we all have the right to vote for whomever we wish, for whatever reason. If we want to support a candidate who cavorts around the country with a grapefruit on his head, that's our right. I support that right.

I'm not a candidate for office. If I were I'm sure I'd have to find a different base of support than the Gazette forums. Although you say you wouldn't disqualify me based on my religious slant, you say you wouldn't vote for me. I support that right. But I do have one question. Since you don't know me I need to ask whether it was some objective evidence you've gleaned from the past thirty comments or was it grounded in some sort of conviction?

September 22, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, trying to trap me are you? Nope, it was from the evidence which came from your comments one or two posts ago.

I'll agree with you here, however, "When great men and women throughout our history stood for or against something it was almost always from a moral/religious base." But the difference is that they did not take EVERY issue to a religious base. That's my point. I won't vote for a fanatic.

If the Dalai Lama were to run for any office today, how long before people would tear into him for no other reason but because he is a Buddhist? Now I don't consider him a fanatic. I consider him a great thinker. I didn't consider JFK a fanatic either, even though many warned against him because of his Catholic background. I'm just not into extremes.

Netloafer, sometimes I agree with you wholeheartedly, and sometimes I agree with you partly. I guess this is one of those times I only agree with you partly. Such is the nature of argument. Still not gonna vote for you.

September 22, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

By the way everybody, and this is off the subject, but what happened to all the commentary on the Briggs article? The article is there, but the forum posts have disappeared. Hmmmmmm......

September 22, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create

RE: The Briggs comments. My guess is that the Gazette made a decision that the commentary had gone over the line.

Still not running for office

September 23, 2007 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

The comments to the Briggs article were taken down because they bordered on libel.

Gwen Larson
Managing Editor

September 24, 2007 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Gwen Larson

I agree that the comments were close to being libelous, if not worthy of a lawyer looking into the matter.

I've seen a lot of comments like that in these forums and this might be the first time the Gazette has pulled them for this reason.

I applaud the Gazette. It's about time. Vigorous debate is one thing: personal attacks and (potential) libel should never be condoned.

September 24, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

I think (most) people who state that a candidate with a slant towards religion/morals, et al would be acceptable mainly because they assume that religion will be the same/or similar to their own. (God). What if he/she praised Odin (viking god) instead? Would you say "well, that's just crazy"...everyone knows Odin isn't real. Um, well some of us don't believe God is real either. (or Allah, et al)

Netloafer asked if I wouldn't vote for a candidate whose platform was based on one, some or all. I'm not saying that they can't believe in a religion, I just want them to be able to still separate church from state while on the job. What they do in their private life is up to them. I cringe every time I hear Bush say "God Bless America". I'd rather hear something like "I wish for peace and prosperity for all human beings". It's not that tough to come up with something non-religious and still be moral.

September 25, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Kristie R

Would you cringe if you'd been there to hear John Kennedy say that "God's work on earth must truly be our own."?

Would you cringe if you'd been there to hear Jimmy Carter invoke God's name when he was regarding to human rights and foreign policy?

Did you cringe when Bill Clinton referred to the Biblical prophets when he spoke of social justice?

I really don't think so.

I think that much of the anti-faith here bias is quite selective. And, that's fine. It's out in the open for all to see.

I did get an answer to one of my questions, though. People of faith are expected by some to shelve their belief systems whenever they are in the public arena or reform them so that they are more palatable. I grew up in the age of McCarthyism and this is nothing less than the old, discredited philosophy being re-hashed in the name of enlightenment.

September 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

"I would rather live my life believing there is a God and find out there isn't, Than live my life believing there isn't and finding out there is."

September 25, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I heard this quick news flash on the radio this morning so it is not comprehensive. A teacher (I don't know what state) was fired for telling a class in literature that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth. Sooooo, I guess people who do NOT practice a faith are also expected to shelve their belief systems. Remember, I said the story was not comprehensive. We don't know whether the teacher does have a faith and simply doesn't believe in Adam & Eve. Still, it wasn't worth getting fired over.

Netloafer, about JFK and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: yes, they may have referred to God now and then, but they weren't fanatics. They didn't base every single thing they said and did on religion.

Oh yes, about the Dalai Lama. In a recent interview, he was asked if he believed in a God. His answer was yes. But he would still not get any votes because it isn't a Christian God.

September 25, 2007 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

Netloafer - Yes, I would still have cringed at those comments. There is NO doubt about that. I wasn't alive in JFK's time, I was too young for Carter's, but I was quite aware of Clinton and I did not appreciate it.

Weltha~I can't force myself to believe in something I don't. that would be hypocritical and really, wouldn't that be worse? I'd be a total fake.

I do attend church regularly, my husband is very faithful, and I support his right to believe. He also knows I only go so that our children have both sides of the story and they can choose which way they should follow. You might be surprised that I do read children's bible stories to them at night. Yes, I CRINGE when I do it, but I'm not putting my beliefs on them, but trying to be open minded.

September 25, 2007 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I don't believe that a teacher should be fired for saying he or she believes the Adam and Eve story is a myth.

But, there may be more to the story, as printed in the Des Moines Register:

"Adjunct professor Steve Bitterman said administrators at Southwestern Community College in Red Oak sided with students who became upset when he called parts of the Old Testament a fairy tale that should not be interpreted literally.

He made the comment in a class last Tuesday and was fired two days later.

But students in the class, which was transmitted to a classroom in Osceola over the state fiber-optic network, say Bitterman also told them to question their religious beliefs and at one point in the heated debate told one of the Osceola students, Kristen Fry, to "pop a Prozac."

Fry said she left class in tears."

Casey Overton, 19, who also was in the Osceola classroom, said Bitterman spoke "very crudely and made us feel like crap."

"I think he was trying to start a debate, but it came across as insulting and offended everybody," Overton said. "After some of the comments he made, I didn't expect him to be fired, but I'm kind of glad he's gone. There's no way I could have finished the class."

Treating people that way may be acceptable in newspaper forums, but it should never be acceptable in an academic setting, particularly when young people are often at the mercy of their professors.

September 25, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

Hey Kristi, I'm sorry if you took offense to that quote I posted. It wasn't directed at you or anyone else for that matter. Its just a quote that I enjoy and in light of where this thread is going (from abort/war) I wanted to throw it out there. It really truely wasn't ment for harmful purposes. I really am not a "religous" person per say. Well... not a fanatic anyway for what its worth. I have my beliefs as does everyone else. I do totally agree with you on not pushing your views on your kids. That was done to me until high school and now I do question alot not all, of what I grew up knowing. My kids also go to church so they can form their own views by seeing both sides.

September 25, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

Weltha~Thanks for the clarification. I have heard that saying before (on a different debate board - same topic)...and it's always sort of gotten my goat. I believe my response was pretty much the same too. I just can't force it.

September 25, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, I truly appreciate your providing the whole story. You are a scholar and a gentle man. That changes my opinion now because the professor's demeanor should definitely not have been so vulgar. I don't know about firing him though. Administrative leave and criticism in a letter sound about right. That stays with you on the record.

September 25, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create

I think there was a lot of over-reaction on both sides of this. That's unfortunate.

I took a course at E.S.U. as a senior citizen auditor about four years ago. The professor wasn't a bully in the classic sense, but he did use his position to ensure that his philosophical position was drilled in as they only acceptable one.

I think there's a lot more of that going on in our universities than we'd like to admit. They're supposed to be about openess and diversity, but that's not always the case.

September 25, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I think you must have taken a class from the same philosophy prof I had when I was an undergrad years ago. He would antagonize arguments in the class and it was unfortunate because some students like me were non-trads and could handle it, yea, even able to return his verbal blows. Others were fresh out of high school and easily intimidated. No room for that in a mixed class. Thanks again for the clarification.

September 26, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create:

I'm sure that situation in Iowa will play itself out and everyone will see that it was a combination of things. The unfortunate thing about the situation was that in the end no one will be satisfied. No one will win.

I've taken a few philosophy classes here and there but none at E.S.U. I've found that some philsophy professors can twist an A-form proposition with the best of 'em. I've even been around one who could prove logically that a dog was a cat.

September 26, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

suzyQ (anonymous) says...

Well melE true we aren't supposed to judge , but would help if you and your mom who posts on here would also remeber not to cast the first stone.

September 27, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Did I cast the first stone? Please show me where I did.

What's my mom's screenname? I'd like to tell her hello. Thanks.

M

September 30, 2007 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

suzyQ (anonymous) says...

MelissaE, i have known you and daviedailey since the day you were born.

October 1, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )