Saddleback Forum

[Geo]

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.

You started with "perhaps you haven't read the musings of our founding fathers..." as if you might really believe I haven't...

You're kidding, right? Folks with my viewpoint hear these quotes as support for your viewpoint on religion all the time...

No doubt about it- this country was founded by Christians, many of whom felt strongly about Christianity. But they also felt okay about being slaveowners and having wooden teeth...

I like to think that if Adams, Hancock et al could hop in the Delorean and come visit us today that they would realize religion (or at least a singular view on it) no longer makes sense in government just like they would trade up for some veneers...

 

[hnooe]

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
?Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together??

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

?It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.? [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.

Have to admit the "musing of the Founding Fathers" is not my idea of a good read. It just sounds to me like Jesus is still being pimped out for any and all polititicians, to use him as they will throughout the centuries, and even now with Rick Warren even shepherding both contenders toward the light. Jesus-- save me from your followers and your polititians!

 

[Miss Kitty]

It's sad to me that so few people see the connections between pro-life agenda and the mortgage crisis.

Many people will read the post above and think the bit about judges that please the far right to mean they will overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem is the growth of the power of the Presidency, the redistricting to benefit Republicans, the Justice Department hiring Oral Roberts University graduates over top of their class people from Harvard, deregulating the banking and insurance industries, rolling back consumer protection laws so that companies import lead covered toys.

Imperial is the right word, goodwitch.

This latest upswing in nationalism has me thinking of other words as well...words you heard a lot in 1930's Germany.

Graduates from both of those colleges scare me. Guess that is why I am on the fence.

I watched the forum and what I took away was McCain said "my friends" too much and Obama talks pretty.

P.S. who is mary hayden, full of thanks? it's not a problem,...but, i don't remember a post from her.

 

[Geo]

I watched the forum and what I took away was McCain said "my friends" too much and Obama talks pretty.

The best quote of the thread, IMHO...

 

[Andy A]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

 

[Geo]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

 

[Linda]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

I agree. I really don't know how an undecided voter could have possibly watched the forum and not have a better understanding of the candidates and what type of President they would be. The undecided swing voters will determine who will be our next President and I want them as informed as possible!!!

 

[Miss Kitty]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

FTLOG...are you talking about me being the CAT? Sorry if I am assuming your intent, Andy A., but that hit a little close to my litter box!

 

[idlewind]

Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

Next time Jesse, or Barack, or Bill, or Hillary decide to go raise money and fish for votes at an African-American or liberal church, I expect to hear the same ringing criticism as you have for a fair exchange in a Evangelical venue.

 

[Geo]

Next time Jesse, or Barack, or Bill, or Hillary decide to go raise money and fish for votes at an African-American or liberal church, I expect to hear the same ringing criticism as you have for a fair exchange in a Evangelical venue.

Clearly you don't understand my views. If you did you would not expect to hear any such criticism from me...

I have no issue with any politican raising money or fishing for votes from the Auto Club of America, Boy Scout Meetings or churches (liberal or conservative, black or white)...

But I do have issue with any singular religion being so powerful that we see its pastor on stage grilling our two final candidates for POTUS. It makes me very uncomfortable irrespective of the religion...

I'm putting myself out there when I say this but quite honestly-

I get queasy when I hear our elected officials even mention God. Even "God Bless America" bothers me...

God sounds as outrageous and out of place to me in speeches by our leaders as it probably does to you when you hear these guys say it in their speeches-





Whether it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, McCain, Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden-

I wish they would leave god out of government and politics. But they all do it. They deliver a speech, talk about defeating their enemies and then they praise god or bless their own country...

I imagine your smiley beating his head against the wall is about to increase the frequency or he has already knocked himself out...