What ever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

[olde_fashioned]

I 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.

Comments

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

A candidate's personal beliefs and values (or lack thereof) is very important to me, as I think it should be for all votes. 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.

I care that 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. The same holds true for a Christian candidate, as well.

Everyone seems to use the rights, needs, and physical risks of the mother as the sole factor of concern when speaking of abortion. There are two lives at stake in a pregnancy, two lives in danger, two bodies, and two human beings with supposedly inalienable rights in question. It's not just a question of a woman's right to choose. What about the baby's right to live? And if it is to be decided that a baby has no right to live, then at what point does an unborn child become viable? At birth? Half-way through pregnancy? Or at conception?

You're entirely right about bills with other things "snuck" into them, but Obama's voting record on abortion is a lot more than a couple "one instance" votes on a couple "sneaky" bills.

Who says that not being willing to meet unconditionally with our enemies means a person is for "dropping bombs first, asking questions later"? I don't think McCain is trigger-happy, if that's what you mean. Are you against pre-emptive strikes? I don't think any country (and that includes America) should intentionally run around starting wars where diplomacy could prevent them, but I don't know that everyone realizes that not all problems can be resolved with words. That kind of diplomacy relies on both parties being willing to cooperate and compromise, and when you're dealing with the likes of Iran and North Korea (and now an increasingly belligerent Russia) you have to able and willing to back up your words with actions.

Iraq is a touchy issue for everyone, but I think it's a huge mistake to let the choices of one president, whether or not you agree with them, taint one's methods of dealing with other enemies and other wars. There are so many people in this world filled with hatred towards Christians, Jews, Americans, and even each other, who are not rational beings and who will never understand anything peaceful.

What is it about McCain that terrifies you so? I never said I was a fan of his, either; so far I've only said how I feel about Obama. But unless you're thinking that McCain = Bush here, I don't understand why anyone would be actually afraid of him. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this. :-)

A monarchy would be worse! Can you imagine getting a bad king and being stuck with them for the entire duration of their life, rather than a maximum of eight years???? O.o I'll take democracy, thank you very much!!

[madame-faust.livejournal.com]

A candidate's religion just isn't something that would sway my opinion on voting for them unless I knew that it was going to seriously effect their policies. Something that has always made me very uncomfortable about Sarah Palin is her insistence that it is God's will that we currently have troops in Iraq. For me, it's all well and good for politicians to have a strong sense of faith (though, as you've pointed out, I think many tend to exaggerate theirs for political gains), but to believe that you are God's mouthpiece on earth...that sort of thinking can become very dangerous, very quickly.

Just to clarify because I don't want to misunderstand you, do you think that a Christian voting for a Muslim president (or Buddhist or Hindu or Wiccan, etc) is inherently a conflict of interests simply because of different religious ideologies?

It is my personal opinion that, in cases where the mother's health (either physical or mental, in the case of rape) is more important than the unborn child's. I fully expect others to violently disagree with me, but that is just what I think. Do I believe that it is "right" for careless young women to think that they can have all the sex they want and if they get pregnant, they could just get rid of it? No, I do not. Do I think that abortion should be available to them, regardless? Yes, I do. Would I ever get an abortion? No, I would not, but I can't find it in myself to condemn those who believe it to be their only option. I have friends who work for Planned Parenthood and one in particular worked as an escort. She would help walk women from their cars past the protesters. Most of the women she dealt with did not come to the decision to abort easily, they thought about it, some prayed about it and the honestly felt that they had no alternative. I just can't find it within myself to condemn them and that's simply the way I feel.

I am very much opposed to pre-emptive strikes and I do think that McCain is trigger-happy. To be completely honest, the thing that frightens me most about the possibility of a McCain-Palin administration is the possibility of instigating a war in Iran. We do not have the manpower to conduct such a war, we simply do not have enough troops and I am sure that if we did become involved with Iran that lack of preparation that damaged our efforts with Iraq would surely dog us there. I am fearful that the draft would be re-instituted and I know so many young men (as I'm sure you do as well) who would be called to fight against their will. I also very much oppose the draft, I find the idea of such to conflict very much with the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I know, I know! But I LOVE monarchies, I love reading about how juicy court politics were/are. I actually got in SUCH trouble with one of my history professors the other day for talking about how swell monarchies are. She was SO indignant, she's from France and still revels in the beheading of Marie Antoinette - though she got her dates wrong. She was ranting about how, "I'm glad we killed them all in 1789!" and I didn't quite have the heart to tell her that the King and Queen were still around until 1793 ;-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Okay, but I think you're missing my point. Religion, by definition, should effect a candidate's policies. But if it doesn't, then they're not even a good Christian/Muslim/Hindu/whatever, and their "religion" is just a false pretense, and in essence, a lie. If you're not going to live your life according to your religious beliefs, then how can you profess to be a member of that religion? Does that make sense? (and I for one find it highly ridiculous how politicians claim to be Christian just because they feel it's "normal" or "accepted.")

I don't think anyone is God's mouthpiece on earth and that's a bunch of nonsense that anyone would pretend they are. I have no idea what Sarah Palin thinks of herself but I certainly hope she's not that high on herself!! ;-P

Just to clarify because I don't want to misunderstand you, do you think that a Christian voting for a Muslim president (or Buddhist or Hindu or Wiccan, etc) is inherently a conflict of interests simply because of different religious ideologies?

In a nutshell, yes.

What is it about the mother that makes her so much more important than her baby? Her age, or maturity? Her "social" worth? Whatever reasons that came be employed to strip a baby of any rights can also be applied to other human beings, not just babies. I'm reminded of Teri Schaivo here.

Cases of rape, incest, and a life-threatening physical condition aside, I do not think that abortion is the only option. It's called adoption. I think the women in this country are encouraged to consider abortion as their way out (and possibly even their only way out) without being fully informed of the physical and mental ramifications of ending the life of another beating heart. I would very much like to see some impartial studies done on the long-term physical and mental status of women who have had to live with their "choice."

So just to clarify, if we had reason to believe that another country was planning to attack us, you would not condone a pre-emptive strike? And what is the difference between being trigger happy and not backing down from an imminent fight?

I think Obama would be highly more likely to reinstitute the draft, and he's also in favour of forcing women to register for it, as well.

LOL, I love monarchies, too, but only from a distance. ;-P And oh dear, I don't think I would get along with your historically misinformed history teacher...*facepalm*

[madame-faust.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay, yes, I wasn't entirely clear on that. Personally, I think it is possible to keep one's religious life out of one's politics and still remain faithful to one's religion. Because there are many people of different religions in this country and it would do a disservice to them to try and run the government as a Christian institution. I use the example of Christianity because an overwhelming number of politicians are Christian.

When people like President Bush claim that God is the reason they have been appointed president or that they rely on God to inform policy decisions, I become very concerned. And Sarah Palin...I just don't know who made that decision. I was really surprised when she was announced as the VP nominee, I was fully expecting them to go with Romney.

Essentially, yes. The fact that they are already established in the world which makes them more valuable than the unborn child in my opinion. As for Terri Schiavo...the difficulty with that is the fact that no one really knew what she wanted and in cases of PVS, I think everyone should be very clear on what it is they wish. For me, I would want my life terminated if my brain was damaged beyond recovery and my friends and family know this.

I'd like to see such a study as well, though I think it would be difficult to carry out since there's still such a stigma that I'll bet a lot of women wouldn't want to come forward or relive the experience. I think that adoption should always be the first choice, absolutely. There are so many people who would love to have a child, I wish that adoption was discussed more. We did in my high school since I went to Catholic school, but even then, our sex ed teachers did say that abortion was an option (albeit, not one condoned by the Church).

Only if we had definitive proof would I think that a pre-emptive strike could be justified and even then, I wouldn't be happy about it. And for me, the situation with Iraq is an example of being trigger-happy. The reasons given for attacking Iraq (WMDs, revenge for 9/11), were proved to be without basis and yet we did, under the guise of pre-emptive warfare. We know that many countries don't like us, but in the case of Iran, we have no proof that they are planning an attack and McCain has been mentioning the danger of Russia with more and more frequency lately...all this makes me very nervous.

Especially Russia since we know what happens when people attack Russia...::coughNapoleonandHitlercough:: ;-)

That may be, but I think it may become necessary under McCain. And I don't really think that Congress would pass a bill that would extend the draft to women, they're too traditional and women can't fight on the front lines, that's what they need right now.

Ha, I know, right? A distance of two centuries or so :-D And my prof's a specialist in medieval studies, so I don't necessarily blame her for thinking that all the trouble went down in 1789, she got a pass from me on that one ;-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I think it is possible to keep one's religious life out of one's politics and still remain faithful to one's religion.

Okay, I have two things to say about this. Firstly, how can one remain faithful to their religion by keeping it out of politics, if that religion has provisions on how to choose elected officials? Second, how much of a religion should a person keep out? The Bible teaches that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Wouldn't a person who was honest, truthful, and trustworthy make a good candidate?

When people like President Bush claim that God is the reason they have been appointed president or that they rely on God to inform policy decisions, I become very concerned.

So do I. However if God is in control of everything, (which I believe He is) then it could technically be argued that He at least allowed Bush to take office. I certainly don't think a person should begin to think that they are God's anointed one, though, that's for sure!!! That's a big red flag IMO, lol. ;-P

The fact that they are already established in the world which makes them more valuable than the unborn child in my opinion.

Okay, so what about a homeless man? What if he has no job, no money, no friends, no family, and makes no "contributions to society" whatsoever. Is he any less valuable than Bill Gates, or Hillary Clinton, or you, or me?

As for Terri Schiavo...the difficulty with that is the fact that no one really knew what she wanted and in cases of PVS, I think everyone should be very clear on what it is they wish. For me, I would want my life terminated if my brain was damaged beyond recovery and my friends and family know this.

Well I believe that God and God alone should decide who is fit to live and who has to die, excepting cases of killing the enemy in war and the death penalty. And many people have made miraculous recoveries from injuries that all the doctors have declared permanently disabling. Many people believed that Terri could have recovered, and she wouldn't have been the first "vegetable" to recover from her state.

Especially Russia since we know what happens when people attack Russia...::coughNapoleonandHitlercough:: ;-)

LOL!!! ;-P Okay, you've got a good point there, but honestly warfare has changed an enormous amount since Napoleon and even Hitler's time, where things would be dramatically different were we to indeed go to war with Russia. I think the question with them needs to be who else are they going to invade next? People looked the other way and hoped Hitler would be appeased with his "tiny countries" and conquests before WWII, too.

That may be, but I think it may become necessary under McCain.

Well unless you believe that McCain's attitude will be exactly like Bush's, I don't see why you would think that. And actually the draft hasn't been necessary, even under Bush, so either way it probably wouldn't become a reality under McCain. :-)

Ha, I know, right? A distance of two centuries or so :-D And my prof's a specialist in medieval studies, so I don't necessarily blame her for thinking that all the trouble went down in 1789, she got a pass from me on that one ;-)

LOL, well, I suppose when one has their nose buried in medieval manuscripts that we can forgive them for not being up on Robespierre & Co., but only so long as she can recite Beowulf from memory. ;-P