It seems that political ideological entrenchment has taken us to the brink of the abyss just one time too many. Does it really take a gun to the make new laws or even fund the government? Would you vote for a politician who is willing to meet in the middle with his or her fellow politicians even if it goes against your personal beliefs?
We have been doing that for years with the slimy scumbags the two parties offer up for choices.
Yeah. We need to say enough and stand up for our rights.
Seriously, we continue to allow Congress to pass laws giving the government the authority to take away our property, liberty, and life, without trial.
It's ridiculous. Our Constitutional rights have been defecated on.
(Thanks Jax, for your persistence in bringing us toward enlightenment. You deserve an award. and I hope you know that I am being sincere.
Here is a "sneeze quote" just for you: Thomas Jefferson advised," Nothing gives one so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances." Keep up the good work.)
JaxsonRaine this government went south years ago when the government went on the auction block to the greedy lobbyists and their minions. The government is no longer ours to run. How did Hillary Clinton win a seat in the senate from a state she never spent any real time in? Who was she representing? The political strength to circumvent the people was never more present than when that move happened.
My father always stated in a sarcastic tone, "We have the best government money can buy".
-yes, it is ours to run.
HOW is the question.
This question isolates the difficulty...
and it is difficult.
By becoming involved in government rather than whining about it. Run for office, any one of you.
You cannot affect change simply by complaining. True, you can affect change indirectly by complaining to people in a position to make that change. But why not put yourself in that position instead of hoping someone one listen to you.
You cannot effect any change in the current system. The reason is that it is a mob mentality that runs amok in the halls of the capital. They are bought to provide their votes and influence to make the laws and spending bills that benefit their benefactors. Outsiders are soon ostracized and summarily spit out if they do not go along with the powers that be. To believe it is any other way is naive and foolish.
You know there is another name for “mob mentality.” It’s called Democracy where the majority rules. Our problem today is that the mob is not the people the bank accounts of a few. Four or five rich people having a larger voice over the majority isn’t a Democracy.
Excellent point on a religious viewpoint and public service. I think Jack Kennedy tried very hard to represent all Americans despite his Catholic upbringing.
I didn't want to address that post and this with two responses and so have combined them.
A plutocracy is indeed what we seem to have right now, but the last election proved that a plutocracy is not all powerful and monied interests can be countered if enough "common people" come together to push back.
Example: One of the issues the left has been screaming about is how the banks and associated reporting institutions have gotten "off the hook" for the financial crises. Someone listened. Eric Holder just filed a five billion dollar suit against Standard and Poors for reporting fraud. And this will be the first of many.
Thank you. For the life of me I could not remember that word. There is a movie “Too big to Fail” that is an eye opener on what really happened to the economy. And I also agree with you Ham Rove spent millions of dollars in advertising and lost most of the races he was spending for. Although in reality this just means the millionaires in the Democratic Party beat the millionaires in the Republican Party.
I'm not attempting to be insulting here, but that strikes me as a rather defeatist attitude. There will always be an attempt to "buy" the influence of a politician. It has been that way from the very beginning and because we do not have a system in place where funding is paid for out of a pool of public funds, it will always be that way. But, and this is a very big but, YOU can choose who your donors are can you not?
The funny thing is that it was not this way from the very begining. The founding fathers were chosen and it was impressed upon them to serve a term or two as a duty. They were hard pressed to make it to the sessions and vote on issues as they had a full time job running thier business'. Where we went wrong was when the career politician stepped into the scene and started campaigning to win a seat. To be re-elected became their priority and thus the money started to become the purpose and not the service to the people. There is only one way to get the system re-booted and that is to have term limits, publicly financed campaigns and real lobby reform that allows equal access to the government. How do you think that will go over with the career slimebags now serving themselves?
Good answer, rhamson.
and We need to "revolutionize regulation."
" We must stop financial insanity"... and
"silence is costly."
Theses are the words of Nomi Prins from a book called, It Takes a Pillage.
She says we must not give votes to the representatives that take from us. She says, "Email them, march before their offices, vote against the ones that don't represent you and tell them why. Start petitions, twitter them. flood their Facebook inboxes."
We do have a common enemy: It is the career politicians.
I agree in principal. I do think there are some politicians who are so effective that a term limit would actually be detrimental to the country. Though I do think Congress should not have the power to set their own compensation. I agree that election financing should be publicly financed and this alone might take care of the lobbying problem. If presented to the current batch such proposal would be almost roundly rejected, though I think there are a few that would be for these measures.
Nothing is all one way and I do believe that you should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The ones that are doing good for the country would not be affected by the changes I suggest. The career criminals (politicians) would be in for a spanking if we were able to press these issues. The problem is that the fox is not only watching the hen house, he is feeding on its' contents with such shortsighted goals of sticking it to us until he or she gets everything "THEY" want.
There have been over 800 tries at a constitutional convention to rectify much of what I write about but the puss that is in charge will hear none of it.
Indeed. Conservatives are always trying to sell us out to big businesses and trying to vaporize the 1st amendment, and it's been that way ever since the end of World War II. We really need to stand up against our corporate overlords and dethrone them once and for all.
Go ahead! Then see what kind of a country we have.
Welcome to HUBPAGES Mike
My first question on the Religious part of the forum, two years ago -
Is there a middle ground between Atheists and Religion
Since Religion is Politics, good luck with that.
At least you will find more information and things for your middle ground's understanding
There is, indeed, a middle ground between Atheists and Religion. It's called "quit shoving religion into everyone's faces and into governmental procedure."
And what is an "actual democratic republic" to you, Zelkiiro?
Depends on what issue/s they were gonna compromise on.
And as of yet I haven't seen anybody in the US try to force anyone else to follow their religion. The Ten Commandments are basic laws of both God and man. It's pretty bad when people in the USA claim that their rights are somehow threatened by those laws. Makes one wonder exactly which of the Ten Comandments (and the resulting laws of the USA which indeed were based on those Commandments) it is that some people want to be able to break without consequences.
Now this is just my opinion, but I do not think that it is the laws that threaten as much as it is the concept or presumption that by displaying them gives them the air of the state endorsing a religion. We are to be open to all religions or to the concept of being apart from a faith. The first commandment outlines the very idea that the atheist does not believe. And it is possible to be an atheist and follow the laws of the land just as it is possible to be a member of the faith that follows the Ten Commandments and not live by them.
The presumption? Yep, I'd say it is a presumption. And it's one based on an oppositional ideology, as your original post referred to. And that's why there can be no middle ground without losing something important.
It's deeper than ya might think.
An atheistic ideology (or one that promotes a different religion than Christianity) is one that, honestly, contains the element of "threat" much moreso than a tradition of belief in God. When atheism is in control, it affects the whole gamut of social issues--------an atheist is less likely to believe in the right of unborn babies to live, less likely to support the rights of the elderly and sick to live as long as they can, less likely to value the issues that are tied to spirituality like life itself! And a whole range of things. Which is why most Christians (and rightly so) are apt to view secularism as an attack on society than as just a perception. Indeed, it's more like a presumption as you said, but one based on rebellion instead of rights.
If nothing else, seems like you've pretty well answered the OP with a very valid reason why there can never be a middle ground.
Because Christians (actually only a handful of Christians) and only Christians have all the answers, the only valid morality and a complete willingness to force both onto everyone around them.
You're presuming, I take it, and illustrating my point.
I thought your claims that atheists have no morals concerning unborn children, the aged or sick pretty indicative. The statement as to devaluing spiritual things is, of course, quite true and to be expected but is also something society in general should devalue. Spiritualism is a very personal and subjective thing, not to be forced onto society in general or other people as individuals.
When I used the word presumption I was referring to the concept of the state endorsing a particular religion. According to one history book (Patriots History of the United States) this was done to stem the tide or Catholics in the US which was a threat to the founders in Boston and Philadelphia. This has (through the interpretation of the constitution) has been translated in to the current public policy where no religion will be endorsed (or enforced) by the state. It just seems like you took that one word and took it out of context to what I was really saying in order to push your agenda. I am a Methodist and I hold to the fundamentals of my beliefs, but I am also an American (and no I am not suggest you are not) so I also hold to the idea that other people have the right to their own beliefs. I know some atheist (three or four that are open about it) and despite the myth many are charitable and civic minded. At least two are prolife (without all the God smiting talk).
Ah, good. You've hit upon the main problem in this issue!----the misunderstanding about so-called "separation of church and state"!
There is NO separation of church and state; was never meant to be.
What was meant to be was a rule that no particular denomination was to be forced upon Americans.
No particular Christian denomination. But it was also meant to uphold the believe in the God of the Bible (the Christian God, whether the followers were Methodist or Catholic or Baptist or whatever Christian denomination they were in).
There was no mention of outside religions including atheism simply because those weren't an issue at that time, and should not be an issue now. It was not meant to be a welcome mat to Islam or Buddhism or any non-Christian belief. Nor was it meant to be a welcome mat to atheism! It wasn't meant to force the belief in God upon atheists, but it was not in any way meant to uphold atheism either. But the liberal activists have tried their darndest to make it an issue, and are apparently succeeding; that is evident every time a Christian caves in and says there's separation of church and state and that we should "tolerate all beliefs". Many Christians, in that way, are creating that "middle ground" that you speak of, whether knowingly or unwittingly. Another way of saying "middle ground" is "fence-straddling". God doesn't like fence-straddling on important issues. Not in our Christian lives, including our political doings.
So, Christians should not tolerate other religions? That does seem to be what you are saying...even though you sort of say that other religions should be allowed, just not "upheld". I'm finding that a little confusing.
The founding fathers wanted to keep religion and politics *separate* because they'd seen more than enough of what happens when they're integrated.
First amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That doesn't define religion. It doesn't define religion at all.
The term "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist.
Want to know what a deist is? Here: http://www.deism.com/
Your argument is used quite a lot by Christians who would like to keep/make America a "Christian country" where other religions are second-class at best. Sadly, it's not actually true.
America should not tolerate other religions making U.S. policy. That's what I'm saying. Nor should it tolerate atheism making U.S. policy.
The basic belief in God Himself (the God of the Christian Bible) isn't a denomination. It is, however, simply that--------the belief in the Creator (God as described in the Holy Bible).
Contrary to the popular fad of saying America is not a Christian Nation, we are indeed a Christian Nation, because we are not a Muslim Nation, nor a pagan Nation, nor an Eastern-religion Nation, etc.
If someone wants to be a citizen of a Nation that doesn't uphold the Creator as their source for ethics, then they should check out other Nations and perhaps go there. If they want to be where there is "tolerance" for ALL other religions being on an equal scale with the foundation of America, maybe they should go there.
Oh...oops....I don't think the Islamic Nations tolerate Christian beliefs very well. Looks like that cuts out a lot of options for people. If activists want to "reform" a Nation, let 'em go to a Nation that NEEDS reform, instead of trying to bring it here.
You are completely and utterly wrong.
Built in 1763 before either the American revolution or the constitution and bill of rights. Just so we are clear, a synagogue is a Jewish holy site, a church if you will. Jews do not believe Christ was the savior; they are still waiting for him in fact.
Wrong again. The nation was founded on Masonic and Roman Republican principals. The Romans were pagan. And the Freemasons recognized the Christian Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.
The "ethics" (actually morals) of the Christian bible are borrowed from the Code of Ur-Nammu which was written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. Here are some of the laws;
1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (§4 in some translations)
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver. (6)
10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver. (7)
11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)
14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver. (15)
19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver. (18)
22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver. (19)
24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him. (21)
25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt. (22)
28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver. (25)
29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case. (26)
30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses. (27)
31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (28)
32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field. (29)
In other words "my way or the highway" right?
Tell you what. You leave. I'll stay.
By the way, the Koran has more in it confirming the virgin birth of Jesus (Isa) by Mary (Mirian) than the New Testament.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
(All religions lead to the same God. (and the christ consciousness within each of us.) Christians need to not be so possessive and dogmatic in thinking it's Jesus or the highway! I'm sorry what's the topic?)
Really, Brenda? If the first 4 commandments refer to Buddha rather than the Christian fable you would have no trouble accepting and following them? You don't understand how a Pagan is threatened by a command to follow ONLY the Christian God? Or an atheist?
Thank you. This is just my opinion to most people’s thinking everything is religion and to compromise on their religion is to deny it. So we will not see compromise any time soon. And in a way Atheism has become its own religion with devout followers out to proved everyone else wrong.
This is where we run into trouble. I agree with you that when it comes to religion people should keep their own council and allow others to do so. If you want the Ten Commandments on display then paint them to the front of your house or tattoo them to your face, but don’t try and force people who follow another religion or none at all to pay for your sigh of devotion. On its face there is no middle ground between the two, but in reality that middle ground is where most of America lives today. Going to church on Sunday (or temple on Saturday) and spending the next six days doing something else. Too many TV is the new religion and business is good.
Personally I believe there are those whom in America who have lived comfortably for some time now, and by doing so this can lead to a jaded outlook on life for some.
Attitudes and perspectives changed once Americans saw the genuine hate directed at American people when those airplanes crashed into the trade center-it was no longer going along with life as usual at that point.
Attitudes changed even for some who thought they wouldn't change when faced with the harsh reality of the Columbine shooting and the continuation of children being murdered while we took the safety of our children for granite in a gun infested society.
So basically Brenda, you don't believe in your own constitution and believe in having a country controlled by one religion like Iran...
There are plenty of things America is founded on. Now, it is true that the Founders were all theists and it does mention God in the Declaration of Independence. However, it does NOT mention Jesus. Nor Christianity.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not all Christian men. Not all men who believe in God. All men.
We've become somewhat more enlightened since, and would no longer limit this to *men*...but at the time, feminism was in its bare infancy and women were still considered to be "different" and, by many, "lesser".
Oh, and Jews and Muslims believe in the same God, like it or not. They may not believe in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. The Jews, with the exception of Messianic Jews, believe the Messiah has yet to come - Messianic Jews believe it was Jesus, but otherwise follow Jewish beliefs, traditions, and culture - e.g., they keep kosher. Muslims don't believe in a Messiah, but follow Mohammed as a prophet. All three, however, believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he whose name is not to be spoken. SAME God, like it or not.
Plus, separation of church and state means NO religion gets to make U.S. policy. Not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. Not atheism, for that matter.
It does not say "G_d;" it says Creator.
The Koran mention Jesus quite a bit. They do not believe he is the Messiah, but they do believe he was a prophet. They also believe g_d took him to heaven, while leaving a replacement on the cross and that Jesus is waiting for the "end times" to return. This is in the Koran mind you!
I really despise intolerant so-called Christians.
Right. I suspect Creator is a deist influence, but I'm not as familiar with that religion/belief system as I might be.
And yes. Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but a less important one than Mohammed, who is believed to be the last prophet and the best, as it were.
Basically Deist means "you believe G_d created all things, but has no direct influence on anything now that the work is done. In other words, now that G_d has created all "He" merely watches the results of his creation, but plays no active role.
"Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way [once He has created it], allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and observation."
Perhaps, I don't know that this is particularly true. They do hold Jesus in high regard. Mohammad is the last prophet which means the "end times" are nigh.
Now I'm a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think the country should be run by his design principals and all office holders should take an oath of fealty to FSM.
That or get out of my country!
by sandra rinck 9 years ago
What would it take for people to get along. Thank God that even atheist believe that it is NOT okay to kill or murder etc. Really I just scratch my head. On Hp, of course Mark and Amanda are just saying whatever, voicing their opinions etc. as we all want to and I wouldn't be afraid of...
by Judy Specht 4 years ago
Can democracy work without the 10 commandments?If it has, please give examples.
by jerami 7 years ago
Atheists pick and choose those verses in the bible that leans in the direction that proves the bible is false Religionists pick and choose those verses that lean to proving the bible to be true. WHAT is UP with that? Proving that religion has ran rampant, or NOT...
by Jack Lee 14 months ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and libertarians...and moderates...What specific conservative belief, policy, or ideals do you...
by Ben Bush 9 months ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?Do you know...
by Paul Swendson 7 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think that almost all Americans would like to reduce the number of abortions. So why...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|