![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
olde_fashionedI feel compelled, by recent replies to my other posts of a political nature, to warn anyone of Democratic, liberal, or otherwise left-leaning politics that I'm posting this because at the moment I feel like expressing myself on my own blog, (even though I'm sure some comments will make me regret it later), not to offend anyone intentionally but to voice my own feelings on a subject which is surely foremost in the majority of minds in this country, if not the world. So this is a warning that few populi will like what I'm about to say, so don't both clicking the cut line if you're not able to read opposing viewpoints and comment like a sensible adult. Everyone is welcome to comment, only refrain from giving me the broadside, please.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does that even mean any more? It means "a woman's right to choose, tolerance of all things immoral, and the separation of church and state." Perhaps we should just strike out the "life" part and replace it with "choice," remove the "liberty," trade it for "tolerance," eliminate the "happiness," swapping it for "all about me" and have done with it.
What happened to a human being's "inalienable rights"? It seems they go out the window when that being becomes an unwanted burden, or a "threat" to a woman's life. We can have liberty, and freedom of speech, so long as we don't exercise that freedom proclaiming our beliefs if they happen to be in opposition to what is politically correct. We can't have any Christianity in our government, but the government wants to tell us what we can and can't preach in those religions. The likes of Rosie O'Donnell can talk about how horrible Christians are, and Evolutionists can curse those who believe in Creation, but heaven forbid a Christian should speak out against homosexuality or the idea that we evolved from apes.
What is wrong with this picture?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Oh, how much can change in two hundred years. In 2009, the object of our government (and a saddeningly large portion of American citizens) seems to be to deny helpless human beings their right to life and happiness, by destroying them under the blessing of the very lawmakers that are supposed to protect them.
This is the same Thomas Jefferson, by the way, that ended his oft-quoted "separation of church and state" letter with, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man." So very interesting, isn't it? That the man whose words have been used for decades as an excuse to rid this country of it's godly foundations was also a fervent Christian himself.
I often wonder, how different would our Founding Fathers have designed our Declaration of Independence, how differently would they have worded our Constitution, and how much would they lament the turn this country has taken, if they could see us now?
I am very glad, that they cannot see us now, for I think we would break their hearts.
I think it would break their hearts, as it breaks mine, that we are on the verge of electing the most liberal senator who has a record worse than the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy (!!) into the highest office in the land. That we might very well have a Muslim as our next president, who is not even man enough or faithful enough to admit that he was born and raised in that religion, who is ashamed of America, has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will once again make partial-birth abortions legal, who wants to deny babies who have already been born basic human rights, and who wants to have tea parties with our international enemies who would probably take very great pleasure out of nuking us off the face of the planet.
I wish the liberals that had vowed to flee the country when Bush was elected had left, then perhaps we would not have to worry about the fate of our country.
I hope God saves this country from herself.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does that even mean any more? It means "a woman's right to choose, tolerance of all things immoral, and the separation of church and state." Perhaps we should just strike out the "life" part and replace it with "choice," remove the "liberty," trade it for "tolerance," eliminate the "happiness," swapping it for "all about me" and have done with it.
What happened to a human being's "inalienable rights"? It seems they go out the window when that being becomes an unwanted burden, or a "threat" to a woman's life. We can have liberty, and freedom of speech, so long as we don't exercise that freedom proclaiming our beliefs if they happen to be in opposition to what is politically correct. We can't have any Christianity in our government, but the government wants to tell us what we can and can't preach in those religions. The likes of Rosie O'Donnell can talk about how horrible Christians are, and Evolutionists can curse those who believe in Creation, but heaven forbid a Christian should speak out against homosexuality or the idea that we evolved from apes.
What is wrong with this picture?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Oh, how much can change in two hundred years. In 2009, the object of our government (and a saddeningly large portion of American citizens) seems to be to deny helpless human beings their right to life and happiness, by destroying them under the blessing of the very lawmakers that are supposed to protect them.
This is the same Thomas Jefferson, by the way, that ended his oft-quoted "separation of church and state" letter with, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man." So very interesting, isn't it? That the man whose words have been used for decades as an excuse to rid this country of it's godly foundations was also a fervent Christian himself.
I often wonder, how different would our Founding Fathers have designed our Declaration of Independence, how differently would they have worded our Constitution, and how much would they lament the turn this country has taken, if they could see us now?
I am very glad, that they cannot see us now, for I think we would break their hearts.
I think it would break their hearts, as it breaks mine, that we are on the verge of electing the most liberal senator who has a record worse than the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy (!!) into the highest office in the land. That we might very well have a Muslim as our next president, who is not even man enough or faithful enough to admit that he was born and raised in that religion, who is ashamed of America, has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will once again make partial-birth abortions legal, who wants to deny babies who have already been born basic human rights, and who wants to have tea parties with our international enemies who would probably take very great pleasure out of nuking us off the face of the planet.
I wish the liberals that had vowed to flee the country when Bush was elected had left, then perhaps we would not have to worry about the fate of our country.
I hope God saves this country from herself.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 08:10 am (UTC)I believe the use of the phrase "separation of church and state" has come to have two different meanings, depending on which side of the aisle you stand. For most conservatives, and for me, when I use it, I mean that I do not at all think we should have a state-sanctioned form of worship, or any sort of "default" religion endorsed by the government. I think we should be free to choose who what when where and how we worship for ourselves, without any interference from anyone. That's one of the principles our country was founded on, and I think it's a Biblical one, too, as nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to enforce conversion to Christianity at the point of a sword.
However I think that when most liberals use the phrase, they take it to mean that any sort of public worship allowed by the government is offensive, particularly if it happens to be Christian. We're allowed to preach sermons from the Bible, but if that sermon touches on homosexuality being a sin then it's branded "hateful" and the preacher becomes guilty of a hate crime. Somehow no one manages to complain if a person were to say "in Buddha's name we pray," or, "in Allah's name we pray," but if someone decided to pray "in the name of Jesus Christ," all of a sudden you have public outcry and indignation. It's interesting, isn't it, how so many are seemingly almost afraid of any reference to the God of Christianity and Judaism?
I care if Obama is a Muslim just as I would care if he was a Hindu or a Buddhist. As a Christian, I cannot conscientiously contribute to putting a person into office if they stand for things that go against what I believe, and the same holds true for any Christian candidate, also. A candidate's personal beliefs and values (or lack thereof) is very important to me, as I think it should be for all voters. I'm not saying that everyone has to hold the same views on those values as I do, just that I feel it's a bad idea to entirely ignore a person's religion, because unless that person is not truly religious, but rather paying "lip service" because they deem it politically expedient, one's religion should be a large part of who they are and what they believe in. (and as for CNN, MSNBC, the LA Times, and Newsweek, please convince me that they're not the liberal rags everyone knows them to be! I'd be willing to bet that they're all endorsing Obama, so that's rather a moot point I think).
Read this. (http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-delegates-overwhelingly-vote-down.html)
Diplomacy and "no preconditions" don't have to be opposite sides of the coin. I just think it's a bad idea and a dangerous one to treat rogue nations like Iran as equals on the same level of communication as other countries, say, the UK. Iran is not our friend, and they shouldn't be treated as such.
I am not a fan of Palin. However Obama doesn't have a whole lot of experience, either, except in the shiny speech department.
So do you think that eight years ago this country was a lot better off with Clinton in office? I don't think it should be a prerequisite of qualification that you have to be 100% opposite of Bush. Don't get me wrong -- I'm far from being a fan of his, either, but I'm just saying that I don't think if Bush says "Red!" we should automatically jump to "Blue!"
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 03:28 pm (UTC)I can't imagine they would have knowingly chose her, especially given that 1) she had a shotgun marriage and 2) her 17 year-old daughter is going to have one, too. I'm not making a moral judgment on that myself, but I am pretty sure many deeply Christian conservatives would be upset by that. Can you explain, as a conservative person, what you might dislike about her? This is something I've been really interested in.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 09:03 pm (UTC)About her 17 year old daughter...are we judging the tree by the fruit? And if so, then why doesn't anyone seem to take an interest in other candidates' children? I don't believe in relations outside of wedlock, but at least they're getting married and doing the right thing. *shrug*