John Kerry may be deemed a "flip-flopper" by some,...and perhaps they have his voting record to back this statement up. But something he said in the debate tonight was a great summary of how I feel about church and state. Kerry begins his statements by responding to Bob Schaffer's question about whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.
I think we have to respect that. The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth….
…Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me. And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic….And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.
That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith…”
I believe in everything that he said here - especially how our public life should be guided by our faith, but WITHOUT transferring it in any offical way to other people. Then he immediately stated that that is why he fights against poverty. Poverty is a gigantic problem that concerns me a great deal, one that I don't think the republicans care much about. And that's why I'm a democrat.
4 comments:
...our public life should be guided by our faith, but WITHOUT transferring it in any offical way to other people. A lot of people espouse this belief...although I can not think of one single example of it occurring in the real world.
The decisions that a president or a senator make affect the lives of millions of people. How can faith guide their "public life" without it affecting any of their decisions? It can't.
Bush's faith obviously plays a role in his policy decisions, hence in his public life.
Kerry either has no faith, or he does not let it play a role in his decisions. Hence, his faith is absent from his public life.
As a side note, it is humorous that right after his "faith shouldn't shape policy" monologue, he goes on to list a bunch of policies that he supports because of his faith.
- doug (too lazy to register...)
i think republicans care about poverty. for example, most members of the lds church vote republican, and we are known for being highly concerned about the temporal welfare of all of god's children. president bush has opened up a new program to allow religious service organizations to receive funding for their poverty, education, and welfare programs. you may disagree with him for this, perhaps calling it an inappropriate mix of church and state, but these organizations are MANY times more efficient than government programs, and thus better able to assist the needy.
secondly, the democrats' vision of a high minimum wage is fantasy. it taxes small businesses by decreasing the number of employees they can hire. this has been shown to cause skyrocketing unemployment rates among minorities. george bush talked about education and training when he was asked about jobs. this is because he believes the safest solution for sucess in an ever-changing economy is providing skills and an education. low-end jobs will always be lost to outsourcing, illegal immigrants, and/or machines. but if you have this "human capital" that george bush is talking about, you will never be laid off for very long. that's the difference between president bush and john kerry: george is committed to improving the economy for the long term. mr. kerry is promising you a lucrative $15/hr dream job at mcdonalds...if you'll only help him get elected.
a third example where the democratic agenda hurts minorities is abortion. legalizing abortion has more devastated the black population percentage-wise than any other ethnic group. it has been called "the answer to the white man's ghetto problem". the bigots couldn't set up full-on nazi-style extermination camps for blacks, but since abortion became legal, they haven't had to!
which brings me to #4. did you know that the vote for the 1964 civil rights act was carried through to law with more republican than democrat support? and i quote:
Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the [1964] Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their "overwhelming majority." [source]
it would be surprising to me that any blacks vote democrat, except i know how savvy politicians manipulate innocent citizens. doug has an excellent post noting the democrats' plans for exploiting the black vote this november, via fraud. http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/10/811922.shtmlfinally, i recommend doug's cousin's post on why he is voting for george bush this year: http://www.conservativevoice.com/archives/000038.htmlrespectfully,
your bro
I've been dying for a chance to put down my political thoughts, so thanks for starting it up (I thought a family letter might be a bit too pushy :). Also, I'm NOT politically savvy (yet), so go easy on critiquing on my lack of all knowledge...I'm working on it. Maybe I should've put this in response to the undecided's, but enough of the intro...
FIRST-
as to the war, I know Bush has made mistakes, and maybe the EMPHASIS of his reasons for going has changed, but it doesn't change everything.
-this war rooted out of agreements made by Hussein w/ us a long time ago. He was breaking a deal w/ us, and wouldn't follow through (Sudan, though sad, hasn't broken a lot of contracts w/ us per se)
-I do think freedom has always been an underlying reason to get there--it is a universal truth
-I know oil is a big controversy, but Bush being interested in it does not show self-centeredness. He realizes that "he who owns oil has power" (ie. power to make, buy, etc. WMD's or bargain w/ those who do) and our interest in power is not JUST to get cheap prices and ownership, but to make sure those who do own it are responsible (liberty gives us the best bet)
-ALSO---I think we're missing a big part of the picture--why is it we don't hear many news stories on how the soldiers there feel??Could it be b/c they are proud to be doing the job that they are, and feel like they ARE getting positive reception, and doing good things, and the media (see book BIAS by democrat Bernard Goldberg)does not want us to see it. If the troops are 80% in favor of Bush as pres. I think it may be a good message.
-lastly, I think it's a lot easier to be attacked for doing something brave (going to war) than for doing something easy (not doing anything, and leaving it to UN)
2nd
"Thomas" said it all concerning welfare, but Elder Oaks on p.40 of Nov Ensign 2003 explains well why free money is so debilitating and debasing. It's not lack of caring for poverty, it's realizing the government is SO INEFFICIENT, and usually the worst way to do things unless absolutely necessary. I have more faith in us to be more charitable. The church's welfare program is ingenious and WORKS (if you call working getting people OUT of welfare, and not just giving them $ while encouraging a lifestyle of dependence and no accountabilitiy)and Bush's ideas of focusing on education when faced w/ poverty issues are close to that (like PEF, etc.) My own firsthand experiences w/ people on welfare (there are plenty here in Yorkville) do NOT persuade me to let the govt to do any more damage!
-3rd (I only have 4 points---none of which are to badmouth Kerry):
MY feelings for opposing gay marriage are these:
Brian worked a lot w/ a law school professor who was a leader of NGO Family Voice that represented the interest of the family at many international conferences, etc. and he shared what he clearly saw as a calculated plan to disseminate the family by many organizations. In so doing, they not only demeaned the family, they particularly demeaned women (Sheri Dew was at a few of these too) and their traditional roles and would basically like to see a genderless world where mothers are the lowest form of existence. Mrs. Heinz Kerry's latest comments saying Laura Bush has never had a real job anyway, and then coming back and apologetically saying, "Oh yeah, she was a teacher and a librarian for a little while" are BEYOND offensive to me, and NOT just b/c I'm a mother!
Anyway, that being said, I think there ARE some values that are important enough for the fed gov to dictate (according to the people's wills, of course, where as now, as in MA, the COURTS decided what the issues would and wouldn't be w/o letting people have a say!). Think of how divided our country became when the federal govt left slavery up to the states. States definitely need their power, but some things we need to be united on, and it can't be approved w/o the states vote anyway.
Really, I agree partners should not be denied rights or priveleges other couples enjoy--so pass bills that allow job equality and visits in hospitals, etc. but WHEN THE SAME RIGHTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS "CIVIL UNIONS" GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS REJECT IT! By wanting to have all the same rights AND call it marriage, they are specifically looking at changing the sanctity of the family.
Gay marriages open the doors for gay adoptions, which I disagree w/ even more (see Proclamation on the Family and rights of children!), which also leads to gay sex education as a part of sex ed. in my children's public schools b/c you can't discriminate against people's parents! (NPR newsstory a few weeks ago), which is beginning to feel like my rights are now being violated! which brings me lastly to
-4th faith in works. I, as I think we do all, agree that NO ONE should force their beliefs on others--that is our whole design in being here, but to say faith can guide you, and not dictate your decisions makes no sense to me. there ARE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS & ABSOLUTE MORALS--not absolute religions, but things everyone can agree are right or wrong. Things like not killing, basic human freedoms, and general goodness is understood by anyone. Murder, stealing, abuse, drug abuse caring for the environment, even speeding are ALL rooted in some sort of moral that we all think is important enough to make law about. There are fine lines, but they ARE lines, and by not choosing a side, you land on the side that says morals are relative and don't matter.
I support Bush not b/c I think he's the perfect pres. or even the best guy ever, but b/c it is clear to me that he TRIES to make decisions based on principles he believes in, and they are GOOD principles, not b/c of the church he goes to, but b/c he tries to be good. He believes in the sanctity of life (by the way, the abortion issue is almost big enough to me to vote on alone), the sanctity of liberty, the sanctity of marriage and family, and those to me don't impose a religion as much as they keep us a moral nation, which IS important! He may make mistakes, but at least, as Juliani said about him, whether you disagree or agree w/ him, you know where he stands,---b/c HE knows where he stands. I'd rather have principles guiding decisions of my leaders than political survival. There are many people who would have us believe that any use of morals in government is infringing on people's rights, but by NOT using morals, you are not only weakening our nation, you are infringing on MY right to call my own beliefs good or valid. Ben Franklin said, "America is great b/c she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." (guess who got the "Take your hat off" tape?)
Well, that's all for now--and probably for at least 4 years--please know I have and will love many democrats--I just can't resist the opportunity to share an opinion--Love, Char
p.s. I have to say it is a relief you live here in GA now, and not in a swing state:)---see you at the polls!!
I'm so glad you brought politics up though---next to Anne of Green Gables, it's one of my favorite topics!
Hotchie Motchie. I have decided to vote for Kerry. THere are a number of reeasons why, but the easiesy one for me to argue is his concern, real concern with the environment. He filabustered on 3 seperate occasions to allow environmental laws to be passed, or prevent the passing of laws decreasing national park lands. "But George Bush is a mountain biker scott" you may very well say. To that I say: he owns a mountain bike and rides it around his fat ranch, basta cosi. I don't think that Bush is, or would continue to be a bad president, but in taking Mom's (and Clarke Howard's) advice, I made a list, a very extensive one, about pros and cons about each opponent, and Kerry came out the winner, and not by too much. I also like to look at their views and actions regarding less popular issues. Popular being respectively: Abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, healthcare. While thos things can't be ignored by any stretch, I alos feel that the candidates are far too manipulated by these major decisions. I liked Kerry's argument for not putting titles on everything and instead having plans and actions to make changes. Kerry is also more attractive and that is what is really important, right?
Posta un commento