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.
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: 2008-11-03 12:16 pm (UTC)Look at it this way...if Mr. Obama does win, at least we can vent to each other!
UGH!
Love,
Lindy
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 12:20 pm (UTC)I do admire your courage to post your thoughts openly.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 01:06 pm (UTC)Praying about tomorrow and all the days that follow.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 03:59 pm (UTC)This reminds me of a book that recently came out called "Tyranny of Nice". I haven't read it yet (I plan on it though!), but I read one of the co-authors' blog every day, and I think you might find that to be a really good book.
I'd be careful about calling Obama a Muslim though, I think it kind of hurts our cause a bit. I'm not convinced that he is (though I'm not convinced that he's a Christian either), I don't think there's really any practical evidence that he's a Muslim anyway (my suspicion is that he had to be listed as "Muslim" to be placed in the school in which he was placed since that country is so heavily Muslim) . . . and really, the fact that he's a Marxist and essentially pro-abortion is argument against him enough.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 04:39 pm (UTC)That as Christians we should vote for the candidate whose views most close agree with scripture because our Christian walk should be a part of every area of our lives including "rendering unto Caesar".
And yes, it bothers me too, how it's such a well liked modern pasttime to people to misquote our founding fathers just to fit their own agenda.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 05:05 pm (UTC)The cruelest irony of Jefferson's letter is how the "separation of church and state" has been taken completely out of context. The Baptist (?) ministers were simply concerned that the government would establish a single denomination as the National Church. Jefferson was reassuring them that Government and Church would never become a monolith similar to certain other European (or dare I say, Middle Eastern) countries. That has absolutely nothing to do with keeping so-called religious principles out of government.
I'm just praying that God will give us the leader we need, not the leader we deserve.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 06:33 pm (UTC)ETA: And I *LOVE* that icon!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 06:46 pm (UTC)I was on the fence regarding abortion for a very long time. I tend to think that if a girl is stupid enough to get knocked up when birth control is so readily available, she should have to face the consequences. I'm not against sex before marriage, but I am very much against casual sex. (For example, I'm not married, but have been with exactly one partner, and we will have been in a relationship for ten years this Christmas.) But then, after seeing my friends who have been raised by young single moms, and the fact that they are, in some cases, seriously messed up, or have had abusive fathers, or after seeing parents in the store yelling at their kids just for acting like children, I came to the decision that motherhood should not be a punishment. If a woman can't take responsibility for her own body, then she definitely shouldn't be taking responsibility for another human's life; and the state simply doesn't do an adequate job of providing for adopted/foster children. I hope to god that I never get pregnant myself, but if I do, I honestly don't know what I would choose, but I know that I want to be able to make that choice, not have the government make it for me.
As for Obama's record, I haven't done any research, but what I understood is that he refused to sign some piece of legislation that would outlaw partial birth abortions because it did not include some provision for the life and health of the mother, and because partial-birth abortions were already illegal in that state. Can you point me toward some information about Obama's plans to legalize partial-birth abortions?
As for his being a Muslim, even if he was raised that way, why should that count against him? Not all Muslims are terrorists; only the extremist groups (kind of like not all Christians are bigots--only a few fundamentalist groups, and not all liberals are godless heathens--only a few extremist groups.)
I have more to say, but I have to go to a class now. This election year, I think that both sides are really, deeply afraid of what will happen if the other party wins. (I know I am.) When did this country become SO ideologically divided, and why?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 07:22 pm (UTC)And no money from me coming to support either side of the campaing, LOL.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 07:30 pm (UTC)I knew about his pro-abortion views (which are scaring the living daylights out of me, thruth be told) but a Marxist?? Oh my word. I come from a post-communist country where we had the bad luck to test the Marxist/Leninist theories on our backs, so to say, for 44 years (and 19 years after 1989, we're still struggling with the remnants of socialism) so the mere thought that someone - a prominent politician! - can still stick to this system, is beyond scary. Gah, I can't believe it. :(((
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 07:31 pm (UTC)And I think with them it wasn't just a matter of them not really knowing what they were talking about, but not caring to dig deeper to try to actually seek out the truth of what they were talking about. They just had their opinions and facts didn't matter.
But that doesn't mean outsiders can't have or express opinions, hehe. My husband is Canadian and he's got all sorts of opinions on our politics! :-)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 07:31 pm (UTC)I agree. That's my stance on voting all the way.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 07:34 pm (UTC)Where are you from (if you don't mind me asking)?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:39 pm (UTC)Yeah, really. O.o Although let's pray I don't have to take you up on your offer!!!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:50 pm (UTC)Isn't that the truth...
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:55 pm (UTC)Pretty icon. :-) Reminds me of Fragonard's paintings!
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:57 pm (UTC)LOL, and yes, I'm 22 as of a few months ago. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 09:59 pm (UTC)