POLITICS - governor of New York

[C. Cash]

Finally (seriously this time), regarding Paul's suggestion that any restriction on the right to bear arms whatsoever is not conservative, does that mean that any whackadoodle murderer should be able to walk out of prison and buy a gun? Because that viewpoint is never going to prevail and only makes defenders of the 2nd Amendment sound absurd.

Michael in NH

You've no problem with the taking of innocent lives by "physicians". You've no problem with un-natural behavior that has been the start of the downfall of other civilizations before ours. And yet you've a problem with people having the means to self defense. It was not until the 20th century that the idea of permanent removal of a person's rights by the state was started. John Wesley Hardin, for example, got out of prison and picked up a pistol almost immediately. The problem is not the possession of weapons. The problem is what is done with them.

And if you don't understand the Biblical underpinnings of our nation, you need to go back and do some study. To believe that our nation's founders would smile upon the chaotic morass that we've devoloped is a stretch of the imagination. I will not deify them. Nor will I deify the United States of America. However, they had a lot more going for them than the current "living document" crowd. What happened with Craig and Spitzer and countless others is a mere symptom of the loss of direction our nation has been experiencing since we cut the foundation out from under ourselves.

Actually, moral and political conservatism go hand in hand. Like was said by one of the founders, "Our constitution is designed for the governing of a moral and religious people. It is not fit for the governing of any other." Please pardon the paraphrase. Indeed, the freedoms recognized by our constitution are only properly handled by a people who know right from wrong and live accordingly. And since we, in our infinite collective wisdom, have decided there IS no right or wrong, there is no surprise in the discovery that we are sinking into chaos.

If you eschew the Bible and its influence on the US' history and law, you'd just as well toss everything out and start from scratch. And what you'll have left will be nothing at all like our nation was set up to be.

Research it. Research it well. Attempt to show through the original documents that our nation has no Biblical roots. It can only be done via the vast rewriting of our history. Oh. Wait! That's already happened, hasn't it?

If we throw away our past, how shall we know which way we should head? It was our solid foundation built on the Christian faith that set our nation in the position she once held. It is an abandonment of those foundations that is leading us down the path of our own destruction. We will not fall to foreign forces,
not until we first destroy ourselves from within.

Ambracol,

Don't know whether anyone wants my name associated with them or not as I'm probably considered one of the religeous loonies here, but will say +1 and Amen Sir to your post! That is spot on.

[Kismet]

And if you don't understand the Biblical underpinnings of our nation, you need to go back and do some study.

If you mean anything other than that many of the people involved in drafting the Constitution were Christians, or that our nation is part and parcel of Western civilization founded on Judeo-Christian heritage, then on this point you are woefully mistaken. In no way is America a "Christian" nation. The founders very deliberately created a secular government.

Like was said by one of the founders, "Our constitution is designed for the governing of a moral and religious people. It is not fit for the governing of any other." Please pardon the paraphrase. Indeed, the freedoms recognized by our constitution are only properly handled by a people who know right from wrong and live accordingly.

I would not suggest that people who reject right from wrong can be governed by any form of government. But, your assumption that right and wrong derives solely from the bible is both unnecessary and contrary to founding of this country. As I said above, we are unquestionably of Judeo-Christian heritage, but that does not mean that our government is, in any way, religious.

If you eschew the Bible and its influence on the US' history and law, you'd just as well toss everything out and start from scratch.

Again this depends on what you mean. I don't suggest that the bible has not influenced history or law. But it absolutely is not the foundation or even a valid reference text for interpreting our Constitution, laws, or government.

If we throw away our past, how shall we know which way we should head? It was our solid foundation built on the Christian faith that set our nation in the position she once held. It is an abandonment of those foundations that is leading us down the path of our own destruction. We will not fall to foreign forces, not until we first destroy ourselves from within.

I have never suggested throwing away our past. Just don't misrepresent it. Again, you are simply incorrect about many of the founder's beliefs - they valued a secular government and secular laws above their personal religious beliefs. They were smart enough to recognize that the strongest form of government would be separate from their personal beliefs. (As in, they kept their political conservatism separate from their social conservatism.) We may very well fall from within, but in the end I will bet that you and I disagree as to where that responsibility should lie.

My final argument is that the proof is in the pudding. The Constitution is undeniably the absolute basis for our government (just ask most people here). That document is expressly secular. If, as you imply, we were somehow a Christian Nation, that document simply would not have been created.

Michael in NH

p.s.

Following links allows one to find a lot of good food for thought on the Internet. I like this, for example: "What do the Christian Sixgunners Believe? ... They believe that the right to express one's ideas should not be repressed, even if those ideas are contrary to their own." Good stuff.

I agree there is some good stuff there. The few articles I read were clearly by people that understood the love and tolerance of Christianity, something sorely lacking in too many conservatives today. If you are one of the former, power to you.

[AmBraCol]

And if you don't understand the Biblical underpinnings of our nation, you need to go back and do some study.

If you mean anything other than that many of the people involved in drafting the Constitution were Christians, or that our nation is part and parcel of Western civilization founded on Judeo-Christian heritage, then on this point you are woefully mistaken. In no way is America a "Christian" nation. The founders very deliberately created a secular government.

Like I said, you need to go back and do some study. They did NOT set up a "secular government", they set up a government based on Biblical principles but with no denominational leaning. As late as the 1890's the US Supreme court decreed that the US is (was) a Christian nation.

Like I mentioned, there's been a serious re-writing of the US history by those who wish to obscure our foundations. I'll put together a separate post on this as this is becoming a serious hijacking of the original thread, for which I apologize to the forum. I will gladly document the assertions I've made. Can you, sir, document your assertion that they fully intended to set up a "secular" government with no basis on the Bible or Christian doctrine?

[Old Ironsights]

Sorry Ironsights, if FSP stands for Free State Project then I'm afraid I'm not the same guy.

Yah. I'm a "late adopter Hedgehog. Maybe someday...

Regarding Craig v. Spitzer, I guess I just disagree as to the respective significance of their hypocrisy. Craig was a U.S. Senator for God's sakes - he wrote laws and established government that everyone would be required to live by. He got to where he was by projecting a certain image of himself to his constituents and the nation. He and Spitzer are nearly identical in their hypocrisy, other issues be darned. My point, of course, was simply that people have a tendency to excoriate "others" but turn a blind eye towards their own party (for lack a better term). I think that is a real danger in politics today. If conservatives had stood up to GWB, the government might not have expanded astronomically in the last eight years.

I don't completely disagree. Yes, he wrote laws (though I'd have to look at whether or not he wrote/co-sponsored specifically anti-gay laws). But he was only one of 100 - not the Main Man directly prosecuting individuals for somthing he was doing himself.

WHat I findparticularly interesting is that while the MSM made a big deal about wanting Craig's head over his Hipocrisy, they are much more muted about Spitzer... as are the main players in the Dem Party - who ALSO made a big deal about Mark Foley - but not Bill Clinton or Barney Frank's alleged association with a gay call-in deal.

Frankly, I find it ALL appaling. Mainly because EVERYONE is inconsistent on the issue.

...My final thought is that most people today, as clearly demonstrated by some of the posters on this site, have confused social conservatism with political conservatism. The Republicans long ago sold out to the social conservatives and it ultimately may be their downfall. Small, accountable government that generally butts out of people's lives (political conservatism) is not in any fashion religious (generally the root of social conservatism, though admittedly not always). I have no more interest in living with a government that defers to the bible as I have in living with a government that defers to the Koran.

With ya there.

Finally (seriously this time), regarding Paul's suggestion that any restriction on the right to bear arms whatsoever is not conservative, does that mean that any whackadoodle murderer should be able to walk out of prison and buy a gun? Because that viewpoint is never going to prevail and only makes defenders of the 2nd Amendment sound absurd.

Here is where you lose me. Obviously people confined to institutions (prison or hospitals) are, by definition, NOT FREE. OTOH, once released, they are assumed to have "paid their debt to society" or, in the case of neurochemical disorders, be stable/safe enough to be returned to publc life.

The RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" is derived from the basic, fundamental, Right to preserve one's EXISTENCE. Even the most lowly of animals has that Right.

Only Humans seem to want to deny that Right to other FREE members of society by denying or restricting the tools of self defene.

Humans are Tool Users. We don't have "tooth and claw". We have Gun and Knife. Preventing a FREE PERSON from possessing tools of self defense equivelent to that of his predators is akin to defanging & declawing a housecat then setting it free in an alley or woods. It's going to die - because evry other creature out there still has tooth and claw.

Do I care if a parolled/released murderer is "allowed" to own a gun? No. If they want one, they are going to get one anyway (that is the basic fallacy of ALL "prohibitions"). I don't care because I WILL NOT give up MY Tooth and Claw. I will be able and ready to defend myself from attacks by such a recividist.

Violent predators should die at the hands of their intended victims. As in the "non-human" animal kingdom, Predators soon learn which prey is too dangerous to attack and which they can attack with impunity.

"Laws" do not stop predators. They only inhibit the Human and Civil RIGHT Self Defense.

Please explain why this position, based upon historical (I live near Chicago... I know just a little abut the effects of Prohibition) precedent and Natural Laws is absurd...

[C. Cash]

What do you think this man, a chief among the Founders, thought of the "separation of Church and State"? And, before anyone says "ya but he was a Deist" remember, Deists think that God does not have an active hand in the affairs of men, so that theory which has been touted goes out the window too.


George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.



Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

[Jeeps]

Do I care if a parolled/released murderer is "allowed" to own a gun? No. If they want one, they are going to get one anyway (that is the basic fallacy of ALL "prohibitions"). I don't care because I WILL NOT give up MY Tooth and Claw. I will be able and ready to defend myself from attacks by such a recividist.

And there it is in black and white

Ask any LEO how easy it is for someone fresh out of prison to get a firearm. I hear it's not hard at all.

They are the "tools of their trade", thinking anything else is ridiculous and dangerous.

How many law abiding citizens have had there lives threatened only to die
during their "waiting period" to obtain self defense.

When alcohol was outlawed how many years did it take them to get it off
the streets? oh yea thats right, they never could.

How long did it take them to finally get illegal drugs off the streets after decades and billions of dollars spent? oh yea thats right, they never could.

DO I CARE IF A RELEASED FELON HAS A FIREARM?

I just want to make sure You and I have an unobstructed access to the means
of our own defense. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is.

If the day ever comes when any type of firearm is outlawed in our country
your will find lathes and other equipment in the places where moonshine stills
once stood a long time ago.

[Old Ironsights]

...If the day ever comes when any type of firearm is outlawed in our country your will find lathes and other equipment in the places where moonshine stills once stood a long time ago.

Naah. Never happen.

Not when it's easier to make a sumachinegun with stock steel tubing, a hack saw, a hand drill and a bench grinder...



Who needs Lathes & Machineing experience?

[Jeeps]

Who needs Lathes & Machineing experience?

There is the "proof in the pudding", the ingenuity of the human animal cannot
be denied.

While in prison, they make there own alcohol and weapons right under the eyes
of "state guardians".

Prisons are the ultimate form of socialism. Yet the actions of the populace still
cannot be controlled totally.

[Charles]

Just a thought or two about the United States being a Christian nation. There is no doubt that "Judio/Christian" ethics and thinking were part of the culture of the Founding Fathers. These notions were desolved in the culture like salt in the sea and cannot be dismissed.

It should be noted that folks like Jefferson and Franklin as well as others were neither Christians nor Jews. They were Diests, which was quite popular among the intellectual set of the day.

The United States Consitution as written by Jefferson was seriously influenced by the thinking of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote "A Fundamental Constution for the Commonwealth of Virginia" that was never adoped but well known. Jefferson paraphrased much of this document and indeed lifted several portions almost verbatim into the U.S. Constution.

It was not the intent of the Founding Fathers to form a Christian nation, not was it their intent to form a God denying nation. I hesitate to use the term "secular" as today secular has come to mean anti-God in some people's thinking.

One cannot understand the history of the country apart from the various religious movment of the times.

In summary, our history, culture and traditions bear the strong stamp of Judio/Christian thinking and belief. While not specificly Christian, neither are we anthiest. We were formed to be a "Godly" nation, but I won't go any farther than that.

Our corporate lives, values, and policies and quickly puts to flight the notion we are a "Christian nation". I doubt if we are more pleasing to Christ than most any other nation.

[C. Cash]

Just .02 more cents

Not going against what your saying Charles and indeed you have very good points, but also believe it's important to state that the vast, vast majority of the Founders were not Deists. They were Bible Believing Christians who called on God for help and guidance. Jefferson I'm not sure on....it's very likely that by the early 1800's and following the death of his wife, that he did not believe in the miracles of the Bible, but his earlier words don't seem to suggest Deistic thought to me. At least, I've not seen anything reputable that would suggest it but I could be wrong.

These fellows weren't carrying the Plague and neither are the folks here that are Christians. It is BECAUSE, and not despite the Faith of our Founders, that we are free to act upon our concience and criticize the very men which gave us these rights. However, we must fight this rewriting of history regarding what they intended, before millions more swallow it as truth without looking into it on a deeper level. The Left has done it's job well in this respect.

I personally don't gloss over and give a free pass to Conservative Christian leaders and Politicians who violate their station and make a mockery of what they represent. In fact, I am doubly hurt and disgusted when it happens. I also don't believe I'm any better than Spitzer or Haggard or any of them...I got sins just as bad. I believe we should love everyone, including Homosexuals, but also love them enough to declare the Truth of God's word. And if what I say makes people sick, then all gotta do is ignore my post, walk away or call me a no good such and such. That is the beauty of America.

[edwardyoung]

Here's a good resource

http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp

[Charles]

C Cash.... No to belabor the point, but Jefferson was anything but an orthodox Christian, much less a "Bible Believing Christian" Deism was the theology of the rational and did not accept anythng supernatural. Jefferson went so far as to creat this own Bible where he excised anything supernatural.

Jefferson was a member of the Church of England and Diesm was not a religion but a philosophy at the time. This belief in the human reason over anything supernatural was not a formal religion that a person joined. It was the percurser of a theology that morphed into the Uniterian Church.

It was very popular in England and the Colonies and was the theological view of Jefferson, Franklin, John Locke, Thomas Payne, James Madison and others.

If the truth be known the standard brand of Christianity in the Colonies was not what we would call Evangelical or "Bible Believing". It took the 1st. Great Awaking and the preaching of the "new lights" like Whitfield and others to move American Christianity in the direction of a personal faith Bible based faith. It was not until the 2nd. Great Awaking that began in the early 1800s first at Creedance Clearwater camp meeting and then Cane Ridge Camp meeting that Evangelical bible based faith became widespread.

The status of religion in the Colonies at the time of the Birth of this nation was a very cold form of dead Christian orthoxy. This is not to indicate that Judeo/Chistian thinking, values and morals did not help shape this country for indeed they did. But by and large the founding fathers were not hyper religious "Bible Believe" Christians as that term is understood today.

Now a fellow can go and pull a quote by this person or that person out of context to indicate what I just said was not true. But, I am convinced a throughgoing study of the development of religion in American will prove me correct.

I in no way, wanted to insinuate that Christians of any age were carriers of the plague or had an adverse effect on society. In fact I can make a good case that the opposite is true. I believe Christians are the "salt, light and leaven" of this world.

I just believe in intellectual honestry even if it is not to our liking. To insist something is true when it is not, does not do anything good for anybody.

We have to mold, form and shape the future from the reality of the past and the reality of our day. The future can't be shaped from myth, untruth, and wishful thinking.

The often repeated mantra that we are a Christian nation, founded by , iBible believing Christian people just won't stand a honest, critical look at the history. We were formed as a nation that believes in a God/Supreme being and with values, ideals and morals passed down as our Judeo/Christian heritage.

If the truth be known, Freemasonary povided the moral and ethical basis for our national values, more than the Church. Freemasonary is not a religion and does not have a theology. It does acknowledge a God/Supreme Being and it encourages people to strive to the highest values and character in the Judeo/Christian tradition. This is not a bad thing as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other organizations do the same thing.

I am in no ways Anti-Masonic, but we must acknowledge the huge roll it played in the founding of this country. I am not talking about any of the wide eyed conspiracies often attributed to the Masons, but to the values, moral and character for which the Masons strive.

This nation owes a huge debt to the Masonic Lodge. NO... I am not a Mason. I am an evangelical Christian in the Wesley/Armenian tradition.

[PaperPatch]

Here is some good reading on the matter of Spitzer...



http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson208.html


http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker94.html

[Jeeps]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
________________________________________________

I do not see anything here that says "separation of church and state".

I pretty sure it says that govt is forbidden to make laws about religion, or
anything to do with religion.

The Ten Commandments that were taken out of the office building were not
put there as a law, there were no laws written in the county or state that
said "obey these ten commandments".

They were removed as a form of control, aka someone "prohibited the free exercise thereof", bottom line.

So why is the govt. telling people where they are supposed to express their
religious beliefs? I don't think they are supposed to, just read the first amendment.

There are people in this country that don't want ANYONE praying to their God.
They want to control religion to the point of not existing. This part of the Bill of Rights
is there to protect your worship, but has been warped into controlling it.

[Old Ironsights]

The other prostitution scandal
Steve Chapman
March 13, 2008

Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.

I understand why Spitzer's alleged hiring of a call girl was stupid, selfish, reckless, immoral and a betrayal of his family. What I don't understand is why it was illegal.

It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.

It was Spitzer's effort to hide this pastime that attracted law enforcement attention. Prosecutors investigated him not because he had lipstick on his collar, but because he took steps to conceal his patronage of Emperors Club VIP. By transferring cash to accounts controlled by fake companies, he roused suspicions of political corruption. By now, he probably wishes he had only taken a gratuity to grease a contract.

It's hard to feel excessive sympathy when a colossal hypocrite is exposed. Recently, Spitzer signed a measure increasing penalties for men caught paying for sex, who can now go to jail for as long as a year. But schadenfreude is a weak justification for laws that intrude into the bedroom.

As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."

Alternative newspapers, telephone directories and online sites are replete with ads for massage parlors, escort services and women "eager to meet you!" -- proof that when individuals yearn to find each other for mutually gratifying transactions, they are bound to find a way.

Even the prospect of arrest and public humiliation doesn't deter a lot of people on either side of the business. What should be obvious is that they are willing to spend far more effort achieving these encounters than the rest of us are to spend preventing them.

Outlawing this commerce serves mainly to make things worse, not better. It assures income to criminal organizations with long experience evading the law. It makes prostitutes vulnerable to abuse. It prevents measures to protect the health of providers and patrons.

It exempts an industry from the taxes and fees that legitimate businesses have to pay. It squanders police resources that could be used to fight real crime, while clogging jails and courts with offenders who will soon be back plying their trade.

Supporters of the status quo say the sex industry is filled with victims of human trafficking -- foreigners forced to work in servitude. Whether such modern-day slaves amount to more than a tiny fraction of hookers, however, has never been proved.

Similar claims have been made about migrant farm laborers and domestic workers -- which is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning.

Someone whose job is illegal, in fact, is an ideal candidate for such exploitation, since she is unlikely to go to the cops.

But all this is secondary to the priority of human freedom. We no longer believe the government has a right to prevent homosexuals or heterosexuals from engaging in sexual practices. In 2003, the Supreme Court had the wisdom to strike down a Texas sodomy prosecution against two homosexuals caught in the act.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," asserted the court. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Some brilliant lawyer ought to ask the courts why the state may ban one type of sex between consenting adults but not another. Maybe Eliot Spitzer would like to take it on.

----------

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@tribune.com

[C. Cash]

Charles.......no Sir, my lack of ability to say what I mean is showing itself again.

1st-Didn't mean that you were saying that there was a huge number of Diests. Just felt like some people would further draw the conclusion because it has been preached so much.

2nd, the Plague paragraph wasn't in reference to your post. I thought you could read my mind ie: new paragraph=new subject. Sorry about that!!

I do disagree with your last assertions that were not founded by Bible Believing Christians. This is not myth at all. For many years I have not only read history but also poured over the Wills and documents of folks who lived in the 1600's-1700's in Colonial America doing Genealogical research. It is well founded that they clung to their Christian faith, but because of the social mores of the time were more reluctant to express it openly. You see a pronounced faith it in the farm families as well because for nearly all of these folks, death was right around the corner. They knew the truth, by and large. Anyway, dont want to quibble with a Brother and entertain those who enjoy it. God Bless to you and no offense meant.

[Charles]

Jeeps... The common understanding of the Amendment you quoted was the Goverment did not want any offical state Religion. The amendment is a prohibition against the goverment that keeps them from establishing a religion.

It also guarantees the right of the private individual to worship or not as he or she pleases.

The problems start with Govermental entities introduce religion into the public discourse. This is where the flap over school prayer comes from.

You are correct, there is no language about seperation of church and state. However, anytime any part of the Goverment introduces or endorses a religious act, they run afowl of the Constution.

[Jeeps]

You are correct, there is no language about seperation of church and state. However, anytime any part of the Goverment introduces or endorses a religious act, they run afowl of the Constution.

Taking the Ten Commandment from public places is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as long as there was no law written.

If You or I were to hold public office we are no longer allowed to worship freely?

I doesn't make sense.

If we were to follow the absolute letter of the law then any law against murder
is in direct conflict with the first amendment because it upholds the Christian
belief "Thou shalt not kill".

I know that it sounds absurd but if a municipality can't display something
that the general public believes to be inspiring, yet no law has been made
to enforce the item, then I must be confused as to what "free exercise" means.

Everyone knows that the commandments were taken down and other religious
scenes are removed from public places because of "religiously intolerant"
people who are trying to change our country into socialist state where no one
is allowed to think other than the state wishes them to. Yet they keep getting
support from people who should know better.

Trust me, if any Mayor or Senator or anyone else holding office tried to turn
my village, county, state, or country into a theocracy I would be the first one
to tell them what they are doing wrong.

The first amendment clearly states you should be able to display affirmations
of your faith as long as you don't try to make others live by them.

[Kismet]

Lots of good discussion here folks - thanks.

Everyone knows that the commandments were taken down and other religious scenes are removed from public places because of "religiously intolerant" people who are trying to change our country into socialist state where no one is allowed to think other than the state wishes them to.

This is complete hogwash and amounts to little more than name-calling. The 1st Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the Government cannot "endorse" a religion. If you can't see how facing a judge (black robe and elevated seat and all) with a nice big set of the Ten Commandments behind him could make someone feel like he is endorsing God's laws instead of America's laws, then congratulations, you are a straight, white, Christian male (though I should probably add female here, too). To pretty much anyone else, widespread Christian religious displays in government buildings seems to endorse a certain religion. Generally (big caveat), the people opposed to such displays want tolerance! They want everyone to feel included.

One of the most important things to remember about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that it primarily protects the rights of the minority. Think about it - the majority can always get whatever they want in any election. So the idea that Christian displays are just a representation of what the majority of people believe misses the point.

Michael in NH

[Kismet]

Finally (seriously this time), regarding Paul's suggestion that any restriction on the right to bear arms whatsoever is not conservative, does that mean that any whackadoodle murderer should be able to walk out of prison and buy a gun? Because that viewpoint is never going to prevail and only makes defenders of the 2nd Amendment sound absurd.

Here is where you lose me. Obviously people confined to institutions (prison or hospitals) are, by definition, NOT FREE. OTOH, once released, they are assumed to have "paid their debt to society" or, in the case of neurochemical disorders, be stable/safe enough to be returned to publc life.

But whether we like it or not, that is simply not true. Especially in the case of the mentally ill. One can't just say, "OK, you're cured." Not to mention that in the case of a felon being prohibited from having a firearm - THAT IS ONE OF THE PUNISHMENTS! One would think that if such a right is considered so highly valuable, that the threat of losing such a right would be a fantastic deterrent.

The RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" is derived from the basic, fundamental, Right to preserve one's EXISTENCE. Even the most lowly of animals has that Right.

The key words there are "derived from." There are a lot of links in that chain. 99.99% of Americans today have never needed arms to preserve their existence.

Humans are Tool Users. We don't have "tooth and claw". We have Gun and Knife. Preventing a FREE PERSON from possessing tools of self defense equivelent to that of his predators is akin to defanging & declawing a housecat then setting it free in an alley or woods. It's going to die - because evry other creature out there still has tooth and claw.

I would suggest that the most important distinction between us and animals is that we have a better brain. Again, 99.99% of people in America don't seem to be getting devoured. Your analogy is just not accurate. Unarmed people are not declawed housecats in the woods. In today's society there are a myriad of other things that are more important than a gun to prevail. (In fact, the biggest thing defense attorneys complain to me about with a felony conviction is not the loss of gun ownership, it is the difficulty in getting a job. Even the people that don't live in a suburban or urban setting would be better off with a car than a gun, but it is really easy to lose your driver's license. They complain about that a lot, too.)

Do I care if a parolled/released murderer is "allowed" to own a gun? No. If they want one, they are going to get one anyway (that is the basic fallacy of ALL "prohibitions"). I don't care because I WILL NOT give up MY Tooth and Claw. I will be able and ready to defend myself from attacks by such a recividist.

You really don't care, huh? How do you realistically measure the odds that you are going to take the first shot. (The woman in C Springs hailed as a hero for preventing a larger mass murder still "let" two people get killed. How do you know it wouldn't have been you and your wife?)

I would rather that certain people not be able to go buy a gun legally, because at the very least such a restriction (though I understand why you try to change the debate I am certainly not talking about prohibitions) is a speed bump between them and the gun. My original point about this particular restriction, which even many people that support gun rights would believe is reasonable, was simply to dispute the prior post that one who supports "any" gun restriction is not conservative.

Michael in NH

[oldmax]

What the heck does this have to do with Spitzer ????

Sounds like you are trying to find a place to spout Liberal
Socialist C**P,

Why don't you just start another thread, Give a good anti religious
Title, and post to yourself...

[Jarhead]

This Governor is a "SH*T BIRD!"

[Jarhead]

This NY Governor is a "SCUMBAG!"

[Kismet]

What the heck does this have to do with Spitzer ????

Sounds like you are trying to find a place to spout Liberal
Socialist C**P,

Why don't you just start another thread, Give a good anti religious
Title, and post to yourself...

You are right that this thread has gone well off Spitzer. My apologies.

As to your next statement, I have actually considered most of this a very interesting discussion, and I'm quite sure you do not know my political views. I'm sorry you feel unable to join the discussion.

Michael in NH

[Charles]

C Cash.... I saw nothing personal in your post and certainly took no offense of any kind. Just a conversation.

"The first amendment clearly states you should be able to display affirmations of your faith as long as you don't try to make others live by them.".. Jeeps

You are of course 100% correct as long as the "you" in your statement is a private citizen. If the "you" is a representative of the Goverment your statement is not correct. The goverment has the power and when any portion of that goverment through any official makes affirmations of faith, that is the goverment establishing religion.

Said, goverment official has the same rights are non-goverment citizens in regard to display of affirmations of faith, unless that affirmation is made on goverment property or persuant to the discharge of govermental duties. When that happens, it is a government affirmation and not a private affirmation and that violate the establishment clause.

[brucew44guns]

Paper patch on page 4 has a link that opens to explain in the best I've heard so far what this Governor was all about. Good read, written by an experienced man who lived through some of Eliots escapades. I'd bet Eliots troubles are only just begginning.

[Jeeps]

I think I understand now, when you get into government your first
amendment rights are taken away by the state.

All this time I thought they were just not supposed to make laws respecting
an establishment of religion.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

Oh, and Kismet, the Constitution does protect minorities. But people with imagined
fears shouldn't be allowed to take other peoples rights away from them.

Yaknow, like people who are afraid to see guns.......

[Jeeps]

Paper patch on page 4 has a link that opens to explain in the best I've heard so far what this Governor was all about. Good read, written by an experienced man who lived through some of Eliots escapades. I'd bet Eliots troubles are only just begginning.

Sorry we got sidetracked Bruce, I read these and wasn't surprised at all.

I wonder what it would take for me to surprised by a politician these days.

Yaknow, I never took a real look at politics till I was in my thirties. My friends
mom asked me one year who I was voting for, my reply was "I don't vote, if
someone is above the rank of mayor, then they did something dirty to get there".
After running out of the house dodging a wooden spoon I looked around
a bit and did some research, I knew right off the bat I was leaning to the right.

9/11 hit us and until then I was never really into watching the news. After being
glued to TV for over a week in depression I started watching the news regularly.
Both dem and repub lie there butts off, dems worse, but I would say 90+%
of all politicians could care less if we died if they could keep the vote.

So here I am back at the "they did something to get there" attitude.

I can only hope that someday they will quit attacking the Bill of Rights and
start paying attention to America before it all just slips away.

I watch a man like Ron Paul come and go so quickly and just sit and wonder
at it all.

I vote the way my heart says to, but sometimes I wish I was still that
young Jarhead who loved America and didn't pay allot of attention.

[Sixgun]

Well, As a blue collar guy, I finally am able to figure out how wars start.

This was one of the greatest threads I have ever seen on this board and have been highly impressed by the intellect of our members. Its all just a little high over my head to get myself involved. I know when not to throw a punch, because you boys would knock me out.

Anyway, back to starting wars--After the intellectuals fight for a year or two with their words, one of 'em finally ends up swinging. Thats when guys like me, (you know, regular dudes) have to pay the price and do the fighting. After 3/4 of the regular dudes are wiped out, the intellectual dudes soon realize their time is coming, so they call a truce to save their own hides.

It all comes down to this--That cat from NY is a dirtbag in the eyes of most rightous people. Analyze it any way you boys want to. If we don't bust down and as J Reed says, "burn em", we will soon be doing what the above paragraph describes. That's how the rank and file see it ------------Sixgun

[Charles]

"think I understand now, when you get into government your first
amendment rights are taken away by the state.

All this time I thought they were just not supposed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Thanks for explaining that to me.".... Jeeps

Nope Jeeps you don't understand it and I said no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I will take it your reply was a form of sarcasm or humor so I won't take another stab at it.. nuff said... Take care

[Jeeps]

"think I understand now, when you get into government your first
amendment rights are taken away by the state.

All this time I thought they were just not supposed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Thanks for explaining that to me.".... Jeeps

Nope Jeeps you don't understand it and I said no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I will take it your reply was a form of sarcasm or humor so I won't take another stab at it.. nuff said... Take care

It was sarcasm, and I do apologize.

But there was no quoting, I was following a logical line of thought.

I will drop this as well, we are too ingrained in what we feel and somehow
have managed to successfully hijack this thread(probably my fault).
_________________________________________

To get back to subject of this thread, I think spitzer should be charged with
everything they can come up with, and punished to the full extent of the law.

Why? Because it is exactly what he would have done. Anyone else I would
find a way to have at least some compassion for, but this man has demonstrated
absolutely no compassion in dealing with others.

He made this poop sandwich................

[brucew44guns]

I started this thread, and never dreamed it would get this many replies. I really appreciate all that I've learned from you men, and think Jeeps pretty well ended the thread with the wish of most. Mercy and compassion often comes to those who dish out some of their own, but this Governor still has some lessons in that area of life to learn, he may well yet feel the harshness of even more trouble that will come from all this scandal. He has betrayed much more than his wife and girls. I hope he has some compassion toward his wife and daughters finally. Bruce