| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 460.1 | I might look at the politics of a preacher though | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Mon Jun 01 1992 14:18 | 15 |
| When I was a kid I read an article that listed the religious
affiliation of all the members of Congress. I was amazed that in
a country where the great majority of the population was either
Catholic or Jewish there were that many Protestants in Congress. :-)
So much for judging the country by ones neighborhood.
That being said, no, I don't look at the religion that a person claims
when picking people to vote for. An atheist I could trust to vote my
way is going to get my vote sooner then a Methodist I can't trust. I
hope people do the same when they vote or don't vote for me.
Alfred
|
| 460.2 | Qualified candidate. What's that??? | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 17:07 | 32 |
|
Hey Bubba!
I usually don't listen to the rhetoric of candidates about being
such good "christians"...I usually watch their actions and listen
to where they stand on the issues.
Hmmm....as for an atheist. I guess if I'm honest with myself,
it would bother me. To what extent I guess would depend on the
candidate himself. If he was as "I believe" a truly "solid"
candidate, I would vote for him. We don't get them too often!
But it would depend on what value he placed on those of the
Christian faith and our beliefs - could he value these differences?
On a side note of Christians and politics:
It alarms me how a group of like-minded Christians speaking out
together on an issue are belittled in this country because they are
"The Church". I am not thinking of any particular group, this is just
an attitude I've perceived in the media for probably 10 years now.
One of things that annoys me the most about politics is the
blatant misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state."
If you look back in history (your fav!) to some of the European
countries, we know that quite often the Royals and "The Church"
(the upper echelon of highly organized religions) joined together
in their oppression of the people. "The Church" was infiltrated and
corrupted by power. This is what our forefathers sought to disengage
themselves from. I think they'd be appalled at the extent that some
people have carried their words without regard to their original
meaning.
Jill
|
| 460.3 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Jun 01 1992 17:15 | 17 |
| RE: 0
I doubt that an athiest could actually be "imminently more qualified in
all respects to be President"...seeing that he/she lacks one VITAL
respect and that is of God!
Personally, I don't think "qualified to be president" has ever been
possible...."QUALIFIED", using means "having previous experience or
expertize" and this is not possible for the Presidency, except in 2nd
term...but again I don't think "qualified" is something to consider
about a president...although Jesse Jackson they say wasn't "qualified"
but that was more because of his SKIN color than anything else8-(
Bush is an Atheist...how many voted for him! And I don't care to
debate that...
Playtoe
|
| 460.4 | | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Mon Jun 01 1992 17:40 | 12 |
| RE: 3
Let me say this, regarding the "athiestic" perspective of the
President. Any President, though alledgedly "religious" (ie belonging
to some church which worships God), who never reflects upon God's Word
(according to the faith he espouses) when making decisions, but instead
ultimately listens and abides by the wishes of certain Interest Groups,
is technically an "Athiest" president...as even any Christian who
doesn't abide by the principles and commandments of the faith of
Christianity is not a "true" Christian.
|
| 460.5 | That includes *me* | MORO::BEELER_JE | Ross Perot for President | Mon Jun 01 1992 17:50 | 14 |
| .3> I doubt that an athiest could actually be "imminently more qualified in
.3> all respects to be President"...seeing that he/she lacks one VITAL
.3> respect and that is of God!
Sorry but I'll take issue with a statement like that.
As a human being, I think that I've done fairly well in life, and, for
the most part have the respect of my friends, peers, superiors and
subordinates.
My belief or lack thereof in any "God" does not have a bloomin' thing
to do with my ability to function and contribute to society.
Bubba
|
| 460.6 | Would like to say I don't, but... | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Jun 01 1992 18:20 | 30 |
| Good questions, Bubba, especially in light of something I heard over
the weekend regarding H. Ross Perot. Someone please, please, please
correct me here if I got this wrong, but apparently Mr. Perot will not
have any adulterers in his cabinet. IMO, pretty scary comment, if
this is true. And if it is true, I gather it's because of his
religious beliefs and, yes, I guess I would *not* vote for him because
of it. Otherwise, I guess I don't *usually* consider the religious
affiliations/beliefs of any candidate. Usually, I say, because I
*would* vote for an atheist if his/her atheism became an issue and I
thought both contenders were more or less equally qualified. In place
of atheism, substitute Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, or most any other
belief/affiliation. I reverse that stand, though, if said candidate
is a fundamentalist. (Does "fundamentalist atheist" make sense? :D)
I would have voted for John F. Kennedy anyway (had I been old enough)
because I certainly couldn't see myself voting for Nixon (although
there is much about Nixon I have grown to admire), but had Kennedy
been running against someone else, I could well have considered his
religion (Catholic) a reason *to* vote for him.
I can understand why some would use religion as a measure of
qualification though. Since there are no hard and fast rules as how
to determine a person's qualifications for any office, bias just
naturally plays a factor in deciding who to vote for. My biases
aren't as clear cut as, say, a Baptist's (no offense meant to *any*
Baptists), but I use them just the same. I challenge anyone to
demonstrate they don't.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.7 | Good topic Bubba!!! | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 18:20 | 16 |
|
Well, I guess we come down to the question "What makes a good
leader?" After all that's what the President is supposed to
be. Would an atheist be devoid of these qualities? No.
But that isn't really what Bubba asked either. He wanted to
know if as a Christian "I" would vote for an atheist if "I" felt
he was capable of doing the job. So I guess Playtoe is justified
in "his" opinion that a qualified leader to him must also be
a Christian. I can accept that.
Playtoe, I don't agree that Jackson was "dis-qualified" because of
the color of his skin. I personally would never vote for "Mr. Photo
Opportunity" because I do not feel he represents me.
Jill
|
| 460.8 | | WMOIS::REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Mon Jun 01 1992 18:34 | 16 |
| I decided that I was at least interested in Carter because I
heard his sister Ruth Carter Stapleton speak at a Christian
retreat camp years earlier. So the fact that he was a Christian
certainly made me more interested in him. However, if there
was someone like Pat Roberts running again, his being the
type of Christian he is would make me avoid voting for him even
if I approved of others of his policies.
and as to voting for Jackson, while I voted for him in the primaries,
I'd not vote for him in a general election because he has no
experience in any elected office. This puts him at a distinct
advantage when it comes to knowing how to do the sort of wheeling
and dealing necessary to get legislation passed and I'd be afraid
he'd be a particularly ineffective president.
Bonnie
|
| 460.9 | We meet again!!! | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 18:43 | 27 |
|
Hi Alvin!!!
First, I'm confused by your note...I don't understand what you meant
about that section about the atheist... I think you said:
If both candidates were equally qualified, you'd vote for the
atheist even if his atheism became an issue. If that's not what
you meant...can you take another stab at this before I make any
comments. I'll check your note again in case there is a new
version out already. ;^)
Second, the Ross Perot rumor. I'll continue on the presumption
of IF it were true...not to say that it is or isn't. I have
no idea. I'm sure that Presidents have picked the cabinets
they did for all kinds of bizarre reasons. However, I think this
would be short-sighted. I've worked with a bunch of people I
don't agree with on a lot of issues, but that doesn't mean I
could not learn valuable lessons from them and them from me.
Third, and finally, in spite of what I've just said and the
fact that these people are no doubt a wealth of information,
I would never, could never, bring myself to vote for a Kennedy.
I consider them one of the lowest forms of life on this planet.
Not to be trusted under any circumstances!!! Gee Bubba, I think
Rush would be proud of me!
Jill
|
| 460.10 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:01 | 17 |
| RE: H Ross Perot
He had a pretty non contriversial interview except for one short
bit. That bit is all the press is covering and they're usually getting
it wrong. I heard the "gay bit". Basically he said that he would avoid
hiring gays for jobs where their bing gay would get in the way of their
doing the job. He didn't say that he wouldn't hire gays at all.
As for the adultry part I didn't hear that but he has been quoted as
saying that if a person's spouse can't trust a person how could he. He
also had mildly uncomplimentry things to say about JFK which indicates
to me that he's a good judge of character.
I disagree with the man on several issues. But I may just vote for him
as being far less a worry then the other two guys.
Alfred
|
| 460.11 | RE: .9 - close, real close | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:06 | 25 |
| Hi again, Jill. It's good to hear from you!
.9> ....................................... I think you said:
.9> If both candidates were equally qualified, you'd vote for the
.9> atheist even if his atheism became an issue. If that's not what
.9> you meant...can you take another stab at this before I make any
.9> comments. I'll check your note again in case there is a new
.9> version out already. ;^)
Not to worry. Only one version this time! :^D
You almost have it right. I thought I said, "if both candidates were
equally qualified, I'd vote for the atheist if his/her atheism became
an issue." Drop the "even". (Also note my use of "his/her". Between
equally qualified candidates, sign me up to vote for the first woman
president. Same goes for the first black president! (Sorry, Playtoe,
although I like him, I simply didn't think Jackson was qualified to be
president.) IMO, we are way, way overdue for a woman or a black
president!)
Looking forward to your comments!
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.12 | What is experience?? | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:11 | 14 |
|
Hi Bonnie,
So are you saying that the only experience that is valuable is
experience in an elected office?
I think our system has already gotten stale and polluted due to
this concept because people keep voting for the same jerks because
at least they've done the job. This country is messed up big time
and if we just keep the same "experienced people" in office, just
shuffling them around to a different post, I believe we'll keep
living the same experience over and over again.
Jill
|
| 460.13 | RE: .10 - acknowledgements
| HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:18 | 12 |
| Thanx, Alfred. I tried real hard to qualify what I said and I only
meant it as an example of how I sometimes consider a person's
religious beliefs when deciding who to vote for.
Sorry to get off the subject, Bubba, but this will only be a quickie
before we get back to our regularly scheduled topic. Alfred, can you
(or anyone else) provide more details about that interview? Like
when, where, who, etc. Thanx.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.14 | | WMOIS::REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:21 | 18 |
| No, I don't think that the *only* experience that is valuable,
is experience in an elected office.
I just recall people saying that the main reason why Carter did
so badly was that he had *no* experience in how to manipulate
congress to get his bills passed. Carter had been governor
of a state and would presumably have had some experience
with that sort of thing.
Jackson has never held elected office. I have a feeling that being
such a total outsider would totally handicap him and he would
get little or nothing accomplished. A black man like Wilder would
have a far better chance than Jackson.
and our system may have gotten stale and polluted, I won't deny
that, I'm just not sure how much better a total outsider can do.
Bonnie
|
| 460.15 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Mon Jun 01 1992 19:53 | 9 |
| > Alfred, can you
> (or anyone else) provide more details about that interview? Like
> when, where, who, etc. Thanx.
It was on 20/20 earlier this week. Barbara Walters interview Perot
and his wife. His wife was impressive BTW. The best qualities of
Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush.
Alfred
|
| 460.16 | Still confused! | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 20:21 | 15 |
|
Alvin,
I need one more point clarified. Keep in mind that I really don't
know what you believe.
What do you mean if his/her atheism became an issue? Do you mean
you'd support him/her simply if...
1) people said "You can't vote from him/her, he/she is an atheist!!!"
2) or do you mean if he/she was going to exert his/her atheism against
any christian ideas that this country may have been built on,
3) or some combination thereof and if so what combination?
Jill
|
| 460.17 | Veering off-course again! | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 01 1992 20:34 | 15 |
|
Bonnie, you've hit the nail right on the head. You're last
line really struck home with me..."I'm not sure how much
better a total outsider would do." Why is it that I or
anyone else in this country would be a total outsider in
a government that is for us and by us???? Is this how
our forefathers meant for this to turn out? I hope not.
I don't believe they only meant for the affluent to be the
government. I believe the basic process needs to be made
fair so that John/Jane Doe Citizen has the same "chance" as
getting elected as any incumbent.
If an outsider is being worked against by the rest of the government,
simply because he's not one of the "gang" and is trying to shake things
up, maybe it's time we kick the "gang" out!
|
| 460.18 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace Reservist | Mon Jun 01 1992 21:30 | 8 |
| I'd vote for an atheist if I believed I was in agreement with the atheist
in the areas I believed to be important.
It has been my observation that many atheists possess and adhere to values
and moral standards as high as those which Christians claim.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 460.19 | Thank you | MORO::BEELER_JE | Ross Perot for President | Mon Jun 01 1992 21:52 | 11 |
| .18> It has been my observation that many atheists possess and adhere
.18> to values and moral standards as high as those which Christians claim.
And a good observation it is, Mr Christie.
To even *assume* that a person must aspire to some supreme being in order
to qualify for a job (with the exception of the ministry) - to *assume*
that this person does not aspire to the same (or higher) standards than
the run-of-the-mill-professed "Christian" ... is <deleted>.
Bubba
|
| 460.20 | RE: .16 - an elaboration | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Mon Jun 01 1992 22:03 | 34 |
| You're more imaginative than I am, Jill. I can see now why you're
confused.
.16> What do you mean if his/her atheism became an issue? Do you mean
.16> you'd support him/her simply if...
.16>
.16> 1) people said "You can't vote from him/her, he/she is an atheist!!!"
.16> 2) or do you mean if he/she was going to exert his/her atheism against
.16> any christian ideas that this country may have been built on,
.16> 3) or some combination thereof and if so what combination?
The answer is 1! I thought my remarks regarding fundamentalism would
have made 2 and 3 above obviously not my meaning, but apparently not.
The Kennedy/Nixon campaign would be a good illustration of where I
stand (if you can please to temporarily forget your dislike of all
things Kennedy and pretend he was just a regular guy, okay?) Neither
candidate in 1960, much to Nixon's credit by the way, made religious
affiliation an issue, but it came up nevertheless in people's
conversations (I wasn't old enough to vote, but I am old enough to
remember). Some people really did say Kennedy shouldn't be elected
because he was Catholic. Fortunately just enough people liked Kennedy
(or disliked Nixon) enough to put him in office (it was *very* close)
so that, no matter your opinion about his person or presidency, now at
least we don't have to worry about dealing with *that* bias anymore (I
hope), which is why you'd have to be pretty well read to know that
Jerry Brown is a Catholic.
Personally I think electing a non-Christian president will prove to
the world that we, as a nation, *really* believe in freedom of
religion! I'm certainly all for proving I believe it.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.21 | | HEFTY::SEABURYM | Zen: It's Not What You Think | Mon Jun 01 1992 23:09 | 38 |
|
The thing that is somewhat strange is how Christians in general
and the so called "Christian right" in particular have been
used by political candidates in recent elections with little
indication that this has bothered them.
With the exception of the appointment of Pro-Life Supreme Court
Justices the last two presidents have done absolutely nothing to
advance the agenda of the religious right. Lip service is all they
have gotten from Reagan and Bush and not much of that.
Take Reagan for instance ( Please ! ). His first marriage ended in divorce
because of his infidelity, he is known to be rather fond of drinking
and dirty jokes and stories, he has seen his grandchild from his son from
his first marriage exactly once, he hasn't been a member of a church
in about 40 years and almost never attends any kind of worship services
and seems to see nothing wrong with his wife's involvement with
astrologers and psychics.
Now, none of these have anything to do with a persons ability to
serve as president on the other hand I'd expect most conservative
Christians to have fits about a this guys personal life. Especially
when it is so at odds with the values he claims to stand for.
It has become a necessity for political candidates to profess a
belief in God and and family values and so on and so forth. For the
most part I don't believe a damn word of it and don't care either
because it is not what I am interested in when I vote. I want to know
how they intend to vote or take action on the list of items on that
make up my political agenda. I don't care if they are male, female,
Christian, Jew, Atheist or Extra-Terrestrial.
I am more interested in who a politician is taking big
contributions from then who they are sleeping with. I am more interested
who who their political allies are then if they go to church on Sunday.
Considering they way a lot of politicians act you'd think most
Christians would be embarrassed to to have these people running around
saying they believed in Christian values. Geeze it's enough to give
Christianity a bad name.
Mike
|
| 460.22 | RE: .21 - I agree, but... | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Jun 02 1992 00:05 | 27 |
| IMO, your remarks regarding politicians in general and Presidents
Reagan and Bush in particular were well put and very insightful, Mike.
I'm afraid, though, I must take exception with:
.21> .... Reagan .............................. first marriage ended in divorce
.21>because of his infidelity, he is known to be rather fond of drinking
.21>and dirty jokes and stories, he has seen his grandchild from his son from
.21>his first marriage exactly once, ...................................
Except for the well known fact that his first marriage ended in
divorce (thus breaking the taboo against divorced men being able to
become president), I hope you can back the rest of this up with
reliable documentation. I don't care for the man myself, but that
doesn't make it right or fair to spread hearsay regarding his personal
life as fact.
Other than that, I totally concur with your opinion and reasoning.
And I just *loved*:
.21> Considering they way a lot of politicians act you'd think most
.21> Christians would be embarrassed to to have these people running around
.21> saying they believed in Christian values. Geeze it's enough to give
.21> Christianity a bad name.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.23 | | HEFTY::SEABURYM | Zen: It's Not What You Think | Tue Jun 02 1992 01:24 | 36 |
|
Re.22
Alvin:
Most of what I have learned about Reagan's personal
life has come from news magazines and the newspapers.
The part about not seeing anything wrong with Nancy's
involvement with occult practices I heard from Ron himself
in a Barbra Walters interview. I won't put it in quotes
because it was awhile ago and it is from memory, but
he basically said it's harmless.
That's the thing that I find so funny. The details of
his personal life have been pretty widely known for a long
time. Now, I think his lifestyle is not a heck a of lot different
than a lot of people's. It is just that he does not have seemed
to have practiced what he preached and a great many people of
both the political and religious right and the American public
in general didn't seem to care as long he said what they wanted
to hear.
I tend to hold the the voting public responsible for the
mess the government is in. We are the ones who put these
people in office. As long as the public is gullible enough
to fall for the flag, mom and apple pie routine then we have
no one to blame but ourselves. We let them get away with not
addressing important issues, with listening to their rhetoric
rather than looking at their records. Hell, most Americans
don't even bother to register and vote and then they have
the gall to complain about the sorry state of affairs the
nation is in. They shirk their responsibilities and point
fingers at others and say they are not doing their jobs.
Such hypocrisy....shame on us.
Mike
|
| 460.24 | Con$cience take$ a back$eat | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Peace Reservist | Tue Jun 02 1992 01:25 | 9 |
| Mike Seabury .21,
Many of your same thoughts have crossed my mind.
But alas, I've a feeling that more people vote in favor of their
pocketbooks than of their consciences.
Peace,
Richard
|
| 460.25 | interesting topic | TFH::KIRK | a simple song | Tue Jun 02 1992 13:20 | 29 |
| re: Note 460.21 by Mike "Zen: It's Not What You Think"
> I don't care if they are male, female, Christian, Jew, Atheist or
> Extra-Terrestrial.
Well, I think they have to be American citizens (since the conversation
seems to be focusing on America politics...), so I'm not sure if an
extra-terrestrial would be legally qualified. .-)
re: 460.23, again by Mike....
> I tend to hold the the voting public responsible for the
mess the government is in.
Yes, because in this country, the people ARE the government.
(But we must accept the responsibility that freedom demands.)
> ...Such hypocrisy..
yes.
> ..shame on us.
Guilty, yes, shameful, no. (There's a note on guilt and shame back a ways.
Yes, it's a bit of an issue of mine...)
Peace,
Jim
|
| 460.26 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Radical Centralist | Tue Jun 02 1992 13:34 | 8 |
| > I tend to hold the the voting public responsible for the
> mess the government is in.
I tend to hold the NONvoting public responsible. There are more
of them and they're not doing their part.
Alfred
|
| 460.27 | 2 cents worth... | BSS::VANFLEET | Perspective. Use it or lose it. | Tue Jun 02 1992 15:55 | 10 |
| I am much more likely to vote for someone who seems to demonstrate
personal integrity in his private and public life than for someone who
professes to be affiliated with any religious organization. After all,
you can call yourself anything but that doesn't require you to live up
to that label.
So religious affiliation doesn't mean that much to me. Personal
integrity does.
Nanci
|
| 460.28 | RE: .23 - yes, I still agree, but... | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Jun 02 1992 16:02 | 15 |
| Mike:
I was very specific about the items I questioned, i.e., *why* his
first marriage ended, his drinking habits, his form of entertaining
personal friends, and his visiting habits regarding one of his
grandchild. All the rest is fairly well known. I don't know that
these particular events or characteristics are common knowledge, at
least not common to me, and if even one of them could be proved as
being untruthful, or no longer true, then the veracity of your whole
example can be questioned. And since I agree with you, I want your
illustrations to be beyond question.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.30 | | WMOIS::REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Tue Jun 02 1992 19:45 | 9 |
| Alvin
I've read the same things that you mention in the news media, that
he was a womanizer and that he is estranged from his adopted son,
and about his drinking. This doesn't make them true, I understand,
but I did want to corroborate that the stories you mentioned had
been in the media.
Bonnie
|
| 460.31 | Convince me and you WIN my vote... | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Tue Jun 02 1992 19:53 | 22 |
| re 5
Bubba
>As a human being, I think that I've done fairly well in life, and, for
>the most part have the respect of my friends, peers, superiors and
>subordinates.
>My belief or lack thereof in any "God" does not have a bloomin' thing
>to do with my ability to function and contribute to society.
I agree you are so able. BUT the issue we are discussing here is "Are
you qualified to be President?" A LEADER of the people? 8-)
>.3> I doubt that an athiest could actually be "imminently more qualified in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>.3> all respects to be President"...seeing that he/she lacks one VITAL
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you the MAN! Should we put YOU in the WHITE HOUSE?
Playtoe
|
| 460.32 | Vote Perot | SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST | PLAYTOE | Tue Jun 02 1992 20:08 | 16 |
| RE: 6
I like Perot for making the stand against Adulterers and Gays in
Washington. I think he's on the right track...
It is the WHITE HOUSE and the SEAT of Administration, the HEAD of this
GOVERNMENT and PEOPLE....and we should keep a clear and sound HEAD.
I'm all for that idea.
As long as Gays are controversial, they will only add to the image
problem we have...and adulterers too. The fact is some Gays and
Adulterers may not want others to know that. The fear is that to hire
someone in Government positions of that nature, someone with skeletons
could be easily compromised.
Playtoe
|
| 460.33 | RE: .29 - now it's me who doesn't understand | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Jun 02 1992 21:07 | 75 |
| .29> I don't agree that other countries would some how believe we support
.29> religious freedom by voting in an atheist president. .............
If I said I believed in equal housing (I do) and then you found out it
was me in the white sheet that burnt the cross on my black neighbor's
lawn, would you believe I supported equal housing?
Possibly, though, you believe religious freedom means the freedom to
be any denomination of Christian (I don't know that that's what you
believe, I'm only trying to make a point). If so, then you'll never
understand what I'm saying. I believe religious freedom means being
free to be or *not* to be a believer in God/gods, as well as being
free to be any kind of religion, Christian or non-Christian. Proof of
that would certainly be that our highest office should be achievable
by anyone who qualified (35 years old and born in this country
according to the Constitution) no matter what their religious beliefs.
So far the presidency has only been obtained by (professed)
Christians. I say this doesn't exactly prove we really believe in
freedom of religion.
.29> .................................................... I'm not aware
.29> that the world has a problem with us on this issue. Please enlighten
.29> me.
If the world doesn't have a problem, Jill, they should - and more
importantly we should. For example, we say we believe in equal
opportunity, but we've yet to elect a woman or a black into our
highest office. France, England, Israel, even Pakistan (yes,
Pakistan!) have elected women prime ministers. What do you think
those countries believe about our claims of equal opportunity? And
what do we tell Iran about their persecution of Baha'is? Can we point
to our own experience and history as proof that all religions can live
together as equals?
I'm not sure what you were trying to say about voter apathy and the
media. If that was directed at me as well, sorry, I missed it. I
will say, though, I think our problem is our ignorance. As a nation
we do not value education, we value sports and automobiles. If we
were better educated, our newspapers would reflect it and out voter
turn out would be much improved.
(This just came to mind. Dan Quayle recently said, "Our goal is to
have the best educated Americans in the world!" If that man doesn't
make you laugh, IMO he should be making you cry. Now, back to our
regularly scheduled REPLY.)
.29> .................................................... Obviously, since
.29> JFK was elected, it must not have been an issue for the American people
.29> that he was Catholic, it was just "media hype". More manipulation
.29> by the press. The question is were they trying to manipulate the
.29> public into not voting for him or were they creating sympathy for
.29> him and manipulating people to vote for him. ........................
No, you misunderstood what I said. The media did not hype Kennedy's
religion, and no one made it an issue. But we did have a Catholic
candidate for president once before; Al Smith. And almost every time
I read about Al Smith I read that the only reason he didn't become
president was because he was Catholic. Now maybe he was to Catholics
what Jessie Jackson will be to blacks when we finally elect a black
president. Point was, until Kennedy was elected, one could easily say
the presidency was closed to Catholics and show by our history that
this was true.
One aside, though. Jill, I have no doubt there is something about the
Kennedys you do not like since you've taken two opportunities to make
that abundantly clear! I do not chose to argue about this and I have
no intention of trying to change your mind, but your opinion of them
has *nothing* to do with what I was trying to say. Worse, it
introduces an emotional element that could get us off the subject,
which is my main objection. Please, no more derogatory remarks about
the Kennedys unless it actually relates. Thanx.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.34 | RE: .30 -Thanx, Bonnie. | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Jun 02 1992 21:12 | 0 |
| 460.35 | RE: .32 - okay, but now let's get back to the topic | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Tue Jun 02 1992 21:29 | 18 |
| .32> ............................................ The fear is that to hire
.32> someone in Government positions of that nature, someone with skeletons
.32> could be easily compromised.
So tell me, Playtoe, who doesn't have skeletons? If you can point to
yourself, you're over 34, and were born in this country, I'll back you
for president even if we don't always see eye to eye. I mean that
seriously!
But I would like to take this off of Perot. When I originally brought
him up (boy, am I sorry I did that :^() it was only to use something
that was said about him as an example of when I would use religion to
decide whether or not to vote for someone. Please, lets all re-read
Bubba's original note and get back on the subject. Thanx.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.36 | | HEFTY::SEABURYM | Zen: It's Not What You Think | Wed Jun 03 1992 01:08 | 45 |
| Re.28
Alvin:
I don't know if anything is beyond question and I can't
cite chapter and verse from the magazine and newspaper articles
since I didn't save them expecting that I might be required
to produce them as documentation at some future date.
The first few items: why he was divorced, and his enjoyment
of off color humor came from a magazine article about his Hollywood
career. I do not remember which magazine it was and I believe it was
back when he was running against Gerry Ford for the GOP nomination
in '76. As I recall his drinking habits are fairly tame. He is not
an alcoholic by any means. The article did say that his favorite
way to pass an evening was to spend it with some of his old Hollywood
friends having a few drinks and telling old stories. The article did
mention his reputation among his friends as a guy who was great at
telling jokes, especially dirty jokes.
His non-church membership and his non-attendence at regular
services was mentioned in a lengthily NY Times profile of him right
after he was re-elected. In the article Reagan said that he read and
believed in the Bible but didn't think church membership or attendance
was necessary. He also mentioned the security problems it would cause.
The reporter mentioned that Nixon had services held at the White House
and Carter attended regular services. Ron just kind of danced around the
issue. He also avoided the question of why he didn't attend church
before he was president by repeating how he read some of the Bible
every day. ( So do I, so I Ron and I have something in common.)
As for seeing one of his grandchildren only once this was originally
reported in Time magazine and was picked up as a story on the national
news on all three networks. The White House realized this looked pretty
bad for a guy who claimed to stand for family values. So it was
arranged that that the granddaughter in question and her parents were
invited to Thanksgiving dinner at the Santa Barbera ranch and a "photo
opportunity" of Reagan, with grandchild on knee, was arranged.
According to Kitty Kelly's bio of Nancy ( Take this part for what you
will ) it is Nancy Reagan who does not like Ron to see his children or
grandchildren from his first marriage. In any case other than the
single "photo op" Reagan has no contact with his children and
grandchildren from his first marriage.
Mike
|
| 460.37 | Religious consideration... | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Wed Jun 03 1992 02:08 | 67 |
|
The Original concept: Does the religious bent of a candidate come
into consideration for those of us in this file who adhere to some
religious organization/belief.
Okay Alvin...
The apathy and media comment was for Alfred with a sidenote for you.
I said that JFK's religion WAS brought up in the media (although
media hype didn't exist quite in the sense that it does today). My
question was and IS who really brought up the religion issue in
regards to Kennedy? Who was behind it? What was their motive in
doing it?
Your comment about the rest of the world believing we have a "do as I
say not as I do" attitude in relation to religious freedom, my point
was (and to quote you!) "give me reliable documentation" to back this
up. I realize you believe it, but what proof do you have that the
rest of the world believes it.
What should the US tell Iran about their persecution of the Bahais?
I believe we'd tell them that persecution on religious grounds is wrong.
But since when does Iran listen to anything we have to say and after
all why should they.
I believe religious freedom is the freedom to choose any religion
or none at all. I believe we have that in this country, but does
that mean we have to elect someone from every and all walks of life
into our highest office to prove it? That's garbage! There's only
been 41 presidents in our ENTIRE history how can that possibly
be representative of all walks of American life?
> Until JFK was elected you could easily say that the presidency
was closed to Catholics.
Sure you could say that and you could say that....
....until somebody named "Chang" is elected, the presidency is closed to
Chinese people.
....until a "Mario Cuomo" is elected, the presidency is
closed to Italians.
....until somebody names "Goldstein" is elected, the presidency is
closed to Jews.
....until somebody from "Colorado" is elected, the presidency is
closed to Coloradians.
....until somebody named "Jethro Clampett" is elected, the presidency
is closed to hillbillies.
....until a "David Duke" is elected, the presidency is closed to
white supremacists.
....and the list goes on. All of these people could run, they indeed
all have the inherent right to run, but that doesn't mean they MUST
be elected to prove we believe in "these freedoms".
I've yet to see a woman candidate for president and out of the women
I'm familiar with in politics...very few would get my vote. As for
women prime ministers...I'm curious how would you say using the
examples you gave that these women improved things in their countries
as a whole and then in particular for women? Also, would you say that
these women were within or outside of the religious bent of their
countries??? I'm sure there are some category of persons that those
countries have not elected as Prime Minister.
Jill
|
| 460.38 | Religion 101 .. Politics 101 | MORO::BEELER_JE | Ross Perot for President | Wed Jun 03 1992 04:44 | 34 |
| .37> The Original concept: Does the religious bent of a candidate come
.37> into consideration for those of us in this file who adhere to some
.37> religious organization/belief.
And the "other side" of the question. Do those of little or no adherence
to organized religion or belief take into consideration the faith of a
candidate?
The first election that I remember was that of Kennedy. No, I wasn't old
enough to vote but that is the first campaign that I remember as a child.
It created quite a quandary for me. The only Catholics that I knew were
some neighbors. I could not believe that a Catholic could make a good
president!! My Catholic neighbors sure had a lot of sex (they had 6
kids), liked Irish whiskey, got up at an unholy time to go to early Mass,
and their kids went to a "special" school for Catholics.
I remember asking my father about this. He tried (in his Baptist way)
to explain the Catholic faith to me (to no avail). I do remember the
part about making lots of babies ... sounded like fun to me :-).
One thing that left me wondering ... to this day. He said that if Kennedy
was a "good Catholic" that there were some vast differences between what
he (my father) believed and what Kennedy believed - for example - that of
birth control and the infallibility of the Pope. So my father couldn't vote
for him.
Now, if Kennedy wasn't a "good Catholic" then perhaps he and my father would
agree on certain things, BUT, if Kennedy wasn't a good Catholic he wasn't true
to his faith and my father could never vote for a man like that!!
That was my first lesson in politics and religion. It was not my last.
Bubba
|
| 460.39 | RE: .36 - closure regarding Reagen past and habits | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Wed Jun 03 1992 15:16 | 9 |
| Okay, okay, Mike. I believe, I believe!
Like I said, the specific items I pointed out weren't well known to
me, although the rest of them were. And, like I said, I really liked
your REPLY. I just wanted to make sure it was defensible. Thanx.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.40 | RE: .37 - comments and questions | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Wed Jun 03 1992 16:55 | 150 |
| Great REPLY, Jill. Thanx.
.37> I said that JFK's religion WAS brought up in the media (although
.37> media hype didn't exist quite in the sense that it does today). My
.37> question was and IS who really brought up the religion issue in
.37> regards to Kennedy? Who was behind it? What was their motive in
.37> doing it?
Well, I may be guilty of misremembering here. I'm sure it was
mentioned in the media, but I think more often in passing, not like in
big banner headlines like "PAPIST SENATOR SEEKING PRESIDENCY". Who
brought it up and what was their motive? Some just to fill in the
picture, like, "comparing the candidates; Nixon was raised a Quaker,
Kennedy is a practicing Catholic". Some for more sinister reasons I'm
sure. Look, I don't want to defend "the media", but "the media" isn't
one big monster with a single purpose. If you get all your
information from one source, it may look that way, but that doesn't
make it true. "The media" is a heterogeneous group of news
disseminating organizations with different editorial policies that
determine where they put their resources and what they choose to
report and not to report. Some are more influential than others, but
influence does not always guarantee those others will "fall in line".
("Not to mention in those days 'the media' had different standards
regarding a politician's private life", our buddy Mr. Clinton reminds
me. Wait till our buddy Mr. Perot finds out about that. :^D)
.37> Your comment about the rest of the world believing we have a "do as I
.37> say not as I do" attitude in relation to religious freedom, my point
.37> was (and to quote you!) "give me reliable documentation" to back this
.37> up. I realize you believe it, but what proof do you have that the
.37> rest of the world believes it.
Ah, you're mixing REPLYs, Jill. My comment about "reliable
documentation" was directed at Mike regarding specific items about
Reagen that, IMO, could be regarded as slanderous and I was concerned
he might have misspoken. I said nothing slanderous about the world; I
was expressing an opinion. I don't need to prove an opinion with
documentation.
But you read the heart of my concern correctly. "Do as I say, don't
do as I do" is the position we put ourselves in when we can't show the
world by our own history and experience that we believe in the
principles we espouse.
.37> What should the US tell Iran about their persecution of the Baha'is?
.37> I believe we'd tell them that persecution on religious grounds is wrong.
.37> But since when does Iran listen to anything we have to say and after
.37> all why should they.
(minor correction mine)
Of course you're right about Iran not listening to us anyway. But we
give them reason not to listen with a "do as I say, not as I do"
attitude (I like that, Jill. You read me perfectly!). Why should
they listen to us? Why should anyone listen to anyone else when their
actions are deemed wrong by the person speaking? I don't know. Maybe
we think they don't see the big picture and our speaking might save a
few lives, make life a little easier for some; you know, things like
that.
But we could go on and say, "well, what do you mean by 'persecution'?"
Isn't denial of full citizen rights a form of persecution?
.37> I believe religious freedom is the freedom to choose any religion
.37> or none at all. ................................................
Yes, we agree!
.37> ............... I believe we have that in this country, but does
.37> that mean we have to elect someone from every and all walks of life
.37> into our highest office to prove it? That's garbage! There's only
.37> been 41 presidents in our ENTIRE history how can that possibly
.37> be representative of all walks of American life?
Hmm.
On the practical level you make an excellent point, since we only
elect presidents every 4 years and then we often re-elect them (again
and again and again and again in the case of FDR. He certainly did
his best to keep that number down to 41 :^D).
But in principle, yes, we should try and "elect someone from every and
all walks of life into our highest office to prove" we really do
believe in our principles! Of course they should also have some
ability and intelligence and experience and... So, do you agree with
me in principle, or is that just so much hog-wash too?
.37> > Until JFK was elected you could easily say that the presidency
.37> was closed to Catholics.
.37>
.37> Sure you could say that and you could say that....
.37>
.37> ....until somebody named "Chang" is elected, the presidency is closed to
.37> Chinese people.
.
.
.
Yes, you've got the jest of it. All but:
.37> ....until a "David Duke" is elected, the presidency is closed to
.37> white supremacists.
White supremacists are an anathema to the principles we, as a nation,
aspire to. I throw them in the same category I throw fundamentalists.
Biased thinking on my part? You bet! But I'll also bet you and I
agree on this too.
.37> women prime ministers...I'm curious how would you say using the
.37> examples you gave that these women improved things in their countries
.37> as a whole and then in particular for women? ........................
As a whole, I can't answer that since I don't specialize in the
history of Israel, Pakistan, et. al. In particular for women? Lots.
They proved that women are just as capable (or incapable) as men in
being national leaders. I'd say that was a *big* improvement. Gads,
I can't believe I'm addressing this to a woman! Look, Jill, what if I
told you no matter how capable you were, you couldn't be a manager
because you were a woman? Before we had women prime ministers, that's
the attitude the world had about women holding that office. Gads, I
can't believe...
.37> ............................................ Also, would you say that
.37> these women were within or outside of the religious bent of their
.37> countries??? ......................................................
They were probably within! I don't think Israel is ever, ever, ever
going to elect a Moslem prime minister, no matter what her
qualifications.
.37> ............ I'm sure there are some category of persons that those
.37> countries have not elected as Prime Minister.
Sure, but we were suppose to be talking about the United States and I
was just using the election of a woman as president as another example
of how we haven't proved we believe in another principle - equal
opportunity. My point, again, is electing a non-Christian to the
presidency will prove to the world (and ourselves) that we actually
believe in freedom of religion.
You focused on my examples, illustrations, and asides, and I've
respectfully (I hope) replied to your concerns and pointed out where I
think we agree, but let's get back to the subject at hand. Would you
vote for an atheist (or a non-Christian) if he/she were otherwise
qualified in your eyes? Why or why not? And if not, what if you
thought that person was *more* qualified than the opposing candidate?
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.41 | | DECWIN::MESSENGER | Bob Messenger | Thu Jun 04 1992 01:52 | 12 |
| Re: .38 Bubba
>And the "other side" of the question. Do those of little or no adherence
>to organized religion or belief take into consideration the faith of a
>candidate?
For me it depends on how I expect the candidate to act on that faith if elected.
For example, I wouldn't vote for Pat Robertson, but that's because he's a hard
line political conservative. I wouldn't vote against someone *just* because
they were a Southern Baptist or *just* because they were Catholic.
-- Bob
|
| 460.42 | My fingers are tired!!! | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Thu Jun 04 1992 01:59 | 103 |
|
Hello again Alvin! Actually, I already answered the original question
in .2, now I'm just fluttering about livening this note up a bit.
o Actually Alvin, the fact the JFK was a Catholic was made a huge issue
by lots of people. The media covered it, but not quite like the
circus reporting they do now. People were asking "if he could be his
own man or would he allow the church to dictate policy...could their
be separation of church and state? The issue was pretty much settled
in primaries because he took a very direct approach with it when
running against Humphrey. So, it wasn't much of an issue by the
time he was running against Nixon.
o It's funny sometimes the things we latch onto from childhood. I've
found in my own life some errors in thinking because of something I
thought I heard when I was younger.
o As for the media, I may sound a bit paranoid I guess, but there are
definitely major power plays carried out in the media all the time.
Not that any one group is behind it, but I'm afraid we do mostly see
only the things they want us to see.
o I know you're sorry to mention Perot, but I'll be interested in what
he has to say on the issues. I heard a guy here at work talking today
saying that he might help us from a business aspect, but from an
environmental and people issues he won't. I don't know that I feel
I have enough information one way or the other. I certainly won't rule
him out because he says he doesn't want "gays or whatever" in his
cabinet. What president before him has? Why don't you ask Bush
and Clinton if they would? One thing I like about Perot is he's a
"get the job done" type of guy...and I for one at least want to hear
more. I don't know who I'll vote for...but it doesn't mean I can't
listen to them all before making up my mind.
o You're right, you didn't say anything slanderous about the world, you
said something slanderous about our country. Your perception seems
to be based on what you've seen, not anything you've heard from
foreign nations. I think we have a good history record in relation
to religious freedom. How many other countries do not have a
national religion? If the majority of people in American consider
themselves good "Christian" people, it isn't wrong, it just is.
Any form of worship is allowed in this country. The only time the
government gets involved is if the law is broken and even then they
are still entitled to worship. In the Colorado Springs phone book
alone there are 100 variations of churches...this isn't even a major
metropolis. We don't have any major movements in this country
(and certainly not any that are government-backed) to do away with
(by whatever means) of any of these. Half of them I've never even
heard of! Alvin, you go to some other country and spend some time...
the US has an excellent record of religious freedom and I believe
the world would back us up on that even without a "fill-in-the-blank"
president.
o I'm not saying not to speak out against injustice. Indeed we should
everywhere! But I was surprised by your comparison of Iran persecuting
the Bahais and US "policy" of denying the presidency based on religious
affiliation. Let me clear something up for you Alvin. It is the
RIGHT of every individual who meets the laws description to run for
the office of president. It is the PRIVILEGE to be chosen as
president by the electorate. Right and privilege are worlds apart
Alvin. Al Smith's rights have not been denied at all. He was
allowed to run for the presidency, he just lost out on the privilege
to be president. In principle and reality anyone from every and
all walks of life can run for our highest office. So to answer
you question about if I think elected them on principle is hogwash...
yes it is!
o The David Duke line was a "scenario" of what you said that everyone
from every and all walks of life should be represented in our
highest office. You know as well as I do that White Supremacists
often use religion to prove there right...albeit out of context.
If they believe they have their god's backing, are you denying their
religious freedom by not electing a David Duke. This is your
principle played out to it's full-extent. I understand that they
do not agree with the principles of this country, but if they weren't
going to carry out their beliefs in office and they were a qualified
candidate aren't you denying their "rights?" Heck, David Duke even
said he didn't have those beliefs and that he's change...but was he
treated fairly???
Of course I agree with you about white supremacists, but I'm just
playing out your principle.
o I thought you had specific things you were going to show about the
women who lead their countries. There were women rulers long
before the term Prime Minister was even invented. This isn't
some concept that's just been proven in this century. Look back
in history there were many women rulers...Cleopatra, Esther, Catherine
the Great, Isabella, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I, Victoria,
Marie of Rumania. Some were good leaders some bad. I don't need
proof that women are good leaders and can do great things for their
country. I already know that, but do you have to be the lead dog on
a dog sled team to help the sled reach it's goal. The privilege of
being a leader goes to the few, but so many more women made a real
difference without the lead position...Joan of Arc, Susan B. Anthony,
Mother Terese, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Florence Nightingale,
Marie Curie, and so many others writers, reformers, teachers, and
caregivers. I'll vote from a women, when I feel she's the best
candidate for the job. We don't need the job to do great things.
Jill
|
| 460.43 | RE: .42 - looks like we agree, but why don't you see it? | HLYCOW::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Thu Jun 04 1992 19:01 | 186 |
| Thanx again, Jill, for another great REPLY.
.42> .................. Actually, I already answered the original question
.42> in .2, ..........................................................
Sorry. I'll go back and look when I've finished this.
.42> ...... now I'm just fluttering about livening this note up a bit.
You're doin' pretty good so far, kid! ;^D
.42> o Actually Alvin, the fact the JFK was a Catholic was made a huge issue
.42> by lots of people. The media covered it, but not quite like the
.42> circus reporting they do now. ......................................
It seems to me this lines up pretty well with what I said. What's
your point?
.42> o As for the media, I may sound a bit paranoid I guess, but there are
.42> definitely major power plays carried out in the media all the time.
.42> Not that any one group is behind it, but I'm afraid we do mostly see
.42> only the things they want us to see.
Yes, "paranoid" is exactly the word I would have used, but that would
have been negative and I do not want to lose a good noter (I have a
reputation, you know, for deleting my own notes when I think they're
too negative. ;^D) But now I'm confused. You say there are "major
power plays carried out" and yet "not any one group is behind" them,
which, I take it, means you see that no one group controls "the
media". And yet you expressed a major concern over the influence "the
media" has over us. Why are you concerned if you have this kind of
insight?
.42> o I know you're sorry to mention Perot, ..............................
Boy, is that ever true!
I've only started to form an opinion about Perot, but I'm undecided
now. I hear good things about him and I hear bad things about him. I
have voted for an independent candidate before, so, yes, it's
conceivable I could vote for him if... For me, it's entirely too
early to tell. I used that alleged comment about adulterers because
*that* struck me as being religious oriented and so was an example of
when I *would* use religion to *not* vote for someone. I wouldn't
expect *anyone* to come out and say they were going to make sure they
put a homosexual in an influential position on purpose. But why did
you comment about Perot and gays?
.42> o You're right, you didn't say anything slanderous about the world, you
.42> said something slanderous about our country. .....................
Well, if you can say calling attention to something someone hasn't
done is being slanderous, then I guess I did.
.42> the US has an excellent record of religious freedom and I believe
.42> the world would back us up on that even without a "fill-in-the-blank"
.42> president.
Agreed, a good record. But all your examples point out that all are
free to *practice* religion, and, yes, we can certainly hold ourselves
up as a shining example of freedom to practice religion. But until we
do have a "fill-in-the-blank" president (I like that) we can't say,
"See, even 'fill-in-the-blank's can become President of the United
States!" I asked you a question in my last note you haven't answered
yet, so I'll ask you again; isn't denial of full citizen rights a form
of persecution? Think about it. And then answer this question; if
the *only* reason a qualified atheist can't become president is
because he/she is an atheist, how does that prove we really believe in
freedom of religion?
.42> o I'm not saying not to speak out against injustice. Indeed we should
.42> everywhere! But I was surprised by your comparison of Iran persecuting
.42> the Bahais and US "policy" of denying the presidency based on religious
.42> affiliation. ...................................................
See my last paragraph.
.42> ...................................................... It is the
.42> RIGHT of every individual who meets the laws description to run for
.42> the office of president. It is the PRIVILEGE to be chosen as
.42> president by the electorate. Right and privilege are worlds apart
This is excellent. Really, very good!
And you are right. But answer me this; if one's religion is the
*only* thing that prevents someone from *ever* enjoying the
"privilege" of becoming president, doesn't it make your "right to run"
meaningless?
.42> ......................................................... to answer
.42> you question about if I think elected them on principle is hogwash...
.42> yes it is!
That's because you hadn't read this REPLY yet. Let me insert my
question again:
.40> But in principle, yes, we should try and "elect someone from every and
.40> all walks of life into our highest office to prove" we really do
.40> believe in our principles! Of course they should also have some
.40> ability and intelligence and experience and... So, do you agree with
.40> me in principle, or is that just so much hog-wash too?
.42> o The David Duke line was a "scenario" of what you said that everyone
.42> from every and all walks of life should be represented in our
.42> highest office. You know as well as I do that White Supremacists
.42> often use religion to prove [they're] right...albeit out of context.
.42> If they believe they have their god's backing, are you denying their
.42> religious freedom by not electing a David Duke. This is your
.42> principle played out to it's full-extent. ......................
(slight correction mine)
Yes, and yelling, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre when there is no fire
is playing out the principle of freedom of speech to it's full-extent
too. Come on, Jill. All along I've *qualified* when I would consider
electing a non-Christian. I'm not advocating electing a non-Christian
president *only* because they're a non-Christian any more than I'd
advocate yelling, "Fire", anytime anyone pleases only to prove freedom
of speech.
.42> ............................................ Heck, David Duke even
.42> said he didn't have those beliefs and that he's change...but was he
.42> treated fairly???
No, he wasn't, but Duke won't be treated fairly until he can prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he really has changed. Do you ask,
will he ever be able to prove that? I strongly doubt it, but I don't
know. All I'm saying is there was enough doubt to not take a chance
that we weren't going to elect a white supremacist to office and so
maybe being unfair is how we prevent such a thing from happening.
.42> Of course I agree with you about white supremacists, but I'm just
.42> playing out your principle.
Phew!
See my comments about yelling fire to answer playing out my principle.
.42> ................................................... I don't need
.42> proof that women are good leaders and can do great things for their
.42> country. I already know that, but do you have to be the lead dog on
.42> a dog sled team to help the sled reach it's goal. The privilege of
.42> being a leader goes to the few, ..................................
You seem to have missed the point... again! Yes, there have been lots
of female leaders all through history (but we're talking about an
elected office, not an inherited position, so those examples are
moot). Yes, women can make great contributions, even when they're not
leaders (but we're talking about electing a president, not about
making contributions, so the point is moot). And, yes, only a few can
become leaders (but we're talking about *how* we decide who will be
elected president, not how many, so the point is moot).
.42> ........... I'll vote from a [woman], when I feel she's the best
.42> candidate for the job. .........................................
(slight correction mine)
Bingo! Pow! Whizzz! What the &*%#o+ took you sooo long? Yes, yes,
yes; that's the ticket! Now - can you substitute "atheist", "Hindu",
"Moslem", "Jew", and don't forget "agnostic", for "woman" above and
say that that's true for you too? If so, then step right up; in
principle you agree with me. If not, then we have a serious
difference of opinion. And if we don't agree in principle, explain it
to me again, I obviously missed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay - I just looked at .2 and here's what I found:
.2> Hmmm....as for an atheist. I guess if I'm honest with myself,
.2> it would bother me. To what extent I guess would depend on the
.2> candidate himself. If he was as "I believe" a truly "solid"
.2> candidate, I would vote for him. We don't get them too often!
.2> But it would depend on what value he placed on those of the
.2> Christian faith and our beliefs - could he value these differences?
So it seems we do agree in principle. Why did you call it hog-wash?
The rest, about, "value ... placed on ... Christian faith", amounts to
bias, and if you'll remember my original note, I believe we all use
bias in making this decision, so I have no argument with you.
Think "Peace",
Alvin
|
| 460.44 | Hope you had a nice week. | CSC32::KINSELLA | it's just a wheen o' blethers | Mon Jun 15 1992 18:22 | 21 |
|
Hi Alvin,
Thanks for sending me mail letting me know you'd be out for the
week. I took advantage of it and took the week off as well. As
I re-read your note, I realize I've lost my zeal for this issue,
but I will clarify two things for you.
I agree in principle on the main issue of voting for a candidate
based on their qualifications regardless of their religious beliefs.
What I think is hogwash is this idea that we should elect people
from all walks of life to truly say we have freedom of "_________".
Second, on the issue of the media. You can't have power plays if
their only one group or person involved. People with money own the
media and I believe they basically buy and sell public opinion by
what they choose to report or how they slant the issues at hand.
Not that they don't ever act in the public's interest, but I think
more times then not they act in their own interests.
Jill
|