Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic: The Common Conservative with Tom Adkins 10pm Eastern Guest: Gary DeLand WAIT TILL YOU HEAR HIS STORIES!!!
You want to hear from seomone on the inside? Someone who is actually on the ground in Iraq? THIS IS YOUR CHANCE!
Plus..the *** the FLYING JACKASSES!!! ***
- the CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
and..."Bitchslap Of The Week"
Is this the moderate view? :-}
I think that goes about it the wrong way.
I should think so. Banning the voluntary recitation of the words "under God" has no place in our Constitutional Republic.
I'm glad to see the case is being kept alive, and with any luck will reach the Supreme Court.
I, on the other hand, put no faith in in the robed oligarchies. None at all. The ongoing culture war spawned by Roe has now been given added impetus with the finding of "transcendent" libeerties in Lawrence. With transcendence, all things are possible.
What I would like to see done is that this is handled correctly and the Supreme Court strikes down the law that Congress passed in the 1950s that first introduced the words "under God" into the Pledge, thus restoring it to the proper Historical Pledge.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
Might want to check those settings then ;-)
Go back through the posts and tally up which side has hurled the most insults and insisted that only "their" view properly represents the Republican Party? Count how many times the term RINO has been used and who has used it. Look at which side insists the Republican Party can carry both camps ...and which side claims Republicans have to vote for only the purist religious or conservative ideology or they are somehow lacking in morals?
I believe that the different elements in the Republican Party SHOULD debate conservative ideals... but the self-righteous attitudes about who is a REAL Republican are useless and destructive.
The only ones who use the term 'reactionary' generally are communists.
Or perhaps you just feel convicted when confronted.
No. It is simply the view of the minority whose personal religious views are not served by the pious use of "God" in the Pledge. It is the view of the very people who understand the destructive effects of exclusion from the social fabric.
Would you also strike chaplains from the armed services, the words "endowed by our creator" in the DOI and the phrase "in the Year of Our Lord" in the Constitution of the United States?
No, no, and no.
Military chaplains provide support and guidance for our troops in the military that is both of a religious and secular nature. I'm not for preventing anyone from expressing their own religion or seeking religious guidance.
I just don't believe the Government should be endorsing a god. The Government is prohibited from endorsing a political candidate. Can't you understand the difference?
The Declaration of Independence actually takes a bit of care to avoid being overtly Christian. It refers to "nature's god" and "their creator" as opposed to "The Creator".
Further more, the Declaration was written before the Constitution established the First Amendment.
And finally, I'm of no mind to go rewriting Historical documents. That is why I think it was reprehensible that the Congress chose to do so in the 1950s. Striking down unconstitutional laws written out of expedience by self-important Congressmen is another story though...
Not at all... the opposite is true. The more vicious the insults are, the more secure I feel in not sharing the ideology behind those accusations. A rational argument supporting a position can make me examine my own view but a poisonous, self-righteous rant just reminds me of the lefties.
Congress passed a LAW that inserted "under God" into the Pledge. That is the very thing I take issue with out of principle.
See, I would prefer just being able to pledge allegiance to my country without having to declare submission to God.
It seems to be quite an injustice that a person should be excluded from something PATRIOTIC just because they are not CHRISTIAN. Especially when the Constitution of the country says that the government can't force a religion on you in the first place.
If those 2 words were taken back out again it would solve the whole divissive issue of to pledge or not to pledge. Then people are free to worship whatever god they choose on their own time and at their own discretion.
Nope, I'm happy to answer that one... calling a fellow Republican a "communist", though, that one falls in my category of offensive.
To answer your question, no it wouldn't be rational to support candidates whos stated views "entirely contradict" the principles of the party we support together. It is only YOUR OPIONION, though, that Arnold's views "entirely contradict" Republican principles. He fails to push the principles that YOU find most important, obviously homosexuality and abortion, but those two positions are not the ONLY ONES on our platform. Other Republicans feel that the position of California Governor doesn't have any power over such legal rulings anyways and Arnold does support many conservative principles that the Governor CAN enforce.
It is a difference of OPINION and STRATEGY, not fake or real Republicans.
I'm sorry, but you are being disingenuous.
Why not coronate yourself 'High Priest of Self-Righteousness'?
And BTW -- Which positions should define "REAL" Republicans in your opinion?
Pro-Choice? Pro-Gay marriage and special rights? Pro-Social programs? Pro-Gun Control?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.