* GOP’s loss of focus on ideological convictions hurts

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Letters to the Editor

GOP’s loss of focus on ideological convictions hurts

Tue, 10/31/2006 - 5:01pm

By: Letters to the ...

I am saddened to see the Republicans in their current mess, but I have no illusions about the reason. They lack the ideological heft and conviction to resist the corrupting influence of power and have focused instead on maintaining the status quo and sending money back to their districts in order to get re-elected.

The only way to protect yourself from the corrupting influence of power is to be firm in your convictions. That is easy to say, but the kind of firmness I am talking about is nearly religious in its character and intensity.

Examples of such ideological conviction are Winston Churchill, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Howard Dean (yikes!), Patrick Moynihan, etc.

I think the current crop of Republicans were not causal agents in bringing about their soon-to-be-lost majority in government. They were beneficiaries of a movement in our country back to more traditional values and principles which was really launched by Reagan. For this movement I truly thank God.

Most of the Republicans of Reagan’s time and certainly those now of course agree with much of Reagan’s philosophy, but very few of them ever had the rock-solid faith in those values. Reagan’s faith was strong enough that it allowed him to occasionally veto a bill, or stand up to the Soviets, or refuse to pander to the crowd. He was willing to endure constant criticism and mockery from the media in pursuit of values he felt were worth dying for.

This rising tide of renewed conservatism swept into office Bush (sort of) and the Republican Congress. But once they got there, they soon forgot why they were there, or perhaps never really understood.

They continued to allow government to expand, refused to make hard choices, preferred inaction and complacency to risking losing power in the name of a larger cause.

To Bush’s credit, he is a man of conviction and has been willing to endure all kinds of abuse and calumny in pursuing what he believes to be right. His chief flaw is that as a mainly practical man, he lacked the ideological depth to successfully define, understand, and achieve his core principles. He has been pretty bad at arguing his points and defending his tactics and has been overwhelmed by the political process.

In any case, the Republicans have let this historic opportunity slip and now are in real jeopardy of losing the House and the Senate. But this is probably appropriate, for I believe that God withholds his grace from those who are not faithful to his principles, and I honestly believe that a great many Republican principles, if not Republicans, are godly (e.g., opposition to abortion and same sex marriage, family values, freedom with responsibility, responsible help for the poor, etc.).

Of course, there is a good chance that if Republicans had been more faithful to conservative principles they would find themselves on the verge of losing anyway. But at least then I would feel good about it because I know we must occasionally, if not often, suffer for the good (Rick Santorum is a good example of this).

But to lose because of perceived or real scandal, inactivity, fiscal irresponsibility, general incompetence, and an inability to fend off the pathetic and adolescent attacks of the Democrats is hard to take.

Of course, I also believe that the main reason for politicians being so superficial and unable to articulate and cleave to an ideologically consistent program is the current election laws, which force politicians to spend the vast majority of their time chasing individual contributions or pleading with extreme or narrow special interests groups to receive indirect funding. Such a system means you get people who are more willing to spend time fund-raising than legislating and problem-solving. Such people are by necessity not ideological, but are primarily interested in power. Why else would they put themselves through such humiliation?

I truly fear Democrats being in power because I know they will continue to pursue a civilization-defeating agenda, but perhaps it will be a good salve to what ails the Republicans and make it clear that opportunists and charlatans need no longer apply.

But, it is only politics, after all. I need to remember where the true Kingdom abides.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

Clarification

Submitted by AMDG on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 9:20pm.

I never said the Republicans were "God's party." That is a leap Democrats and liberals typically make in order to create a theocratic straw man.
What I mean is that parties agree more or less with godly principles based on their stated positions, legislative initiatives, policies, etc. Many on the left cite the Democrats' support of social welfare policies as an example of their "Christian" ethos, since Jesus told us to help the poor. This is true to some extent, but just because a policy purports to help the poor doesn't mean it is automatically conforming to Christian principles. If the policy perpetuates poverty and incapicitates the people it's supposed to help, then is it really "Christian"?
If the Republican platform agrees with Christian principles, it is because Republicans are conforming themselves to those principles. Their principles are godly by association, not by nature or by right. For example, I believe the Republican position on abortion is godly, and the Democratic position is not. We can argue about that, but I have a right, based on my understanding of Christianity, to make and believe this statement. It does not pose a threat to our republican government nor does it mean we're on the cusp of being a theocracy (that is an impossibility).
What scares me is that people on the left seem to say, no, they do say, that using religion to formulate one's position violates the separation of Church and State. That's total horse kaka and needs to be labeled as such. We live in a country where forming political opinions based on one's faith is not only a right, but a fundamental building block of our nation's political history and philosophy.
By the way, Reagan was a deeply religious man. He may not have carried his huge bible to church every Sunday like Clinton, but he based his belief and love of freedom and of life on his religious core.
Peace and Love, especially to the haters,
Trey

Mr. Hoffman: Reagan

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:44pm.

When you speak of Reagan's faith, are you talking about faith in Jesus or faith in his talking ability?
I never though of him, or Nancy, as religious people, just good politicians and money makers. They both came up in Hollywood and their personal morals were about those of the average hollywood, second tier star. Nancy even ran around in the back seat of cars with the Sinatra crowd. Now, I know they can change, especially if that is where the votes were, but I don't see as "faith" had much of anything to do with Reagan's family. Another bad mix of religion and politics! Those last minute conversions are always questionable as to their benefit to humanity.

I Don't Know About Ronnie

Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 4:49pm.

But didn't Nancy consult astronomers on a regular basis?

Did you mean to say "astrologist's"

Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 5:20pm.

I'm still laughing.

Oh, ya baby, she was into it big time.

Google "Nancy Ragan"+ astrologist's, you'll be tired when your done.

I highly recommend tequila at this point.

Yes I Meant Astronomers

Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 2:13pm.

The last thing you need when your way out in space being spacey and looking for atrologists is to lose your way.

Oops...guess you were laughing! Smiling

BTW....I see you're really coming along with those spelling lessons. Eye-wink What an improvement you've made.

"I see dead people"

Submitted by mainframecpu on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 10:33am.

Midnight chats with dead first ladies..... who was it that had those chats? Oh, I recall, Mrs. Clinton wrote about her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt in her June 10 syndicated column. She said she talked to Roosevelt about the role of a first lady.

"She usually responds by telling me to buck up, or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros," Mrs. Clinton wrote.

When are we going to talk about a viable third party? How long are you all going to take this crap?

Stirring the Pot-
MainFrame

Oh CPU Dude

Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 2:14pm.

I forgot all about that. Thanks. Good ole Hillary. I wonder if she'll conveniently forget about that in her presidential big?

Mixing Political Contributions and Politicians

Submitted by jmatute on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 10:50am.

Mr. Hoffman, I am only going to address one aspect of your blog, and that is that.."current election laws, which force politicians to spend the vast majority of their time chasing individual contributions or pleading with extreme or narrow special interests groups to receive indirect funding". I have done some research on this issue lately (about one certain incumbent running for the Georgia 3rd Congressional District). It appears that one only needs to be a Republican and former land developer, and the PAC money just flows in like illicit protection money. The result is a legislator who seems to favor corporate interests over the common middle class constituent. If this is the mantra of the "Conservative with Princples", then it is more like John Dean says in his book as the "Conservatives Without Conscience". We should all be concerned about which party is in control and what abuses of power occur. It just seems to me that the GOP screws things up in a shorter period of time than the Democrats. It also appears that The GOP favors the corporate community over the interests of the individual. The pendulum goes back and forth, trying to find the medium of common interest. Right now I am greatly disturbed by the fact that we are spending around $389,000 for each minute that we are in Iraq.....and for what?????

Mixing politics and religion

Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 10:05am.

There are problems when you mix political theory with religion, the most prevalent one being that you begin to think that your side is God’s side and therefore can not be wrong because God side cannot be wrong. This leads shallow philosophers like Mr. Hoffman to write a letter supporting the current administration and political party even while lamenting that they, “lack the ideological heft and conviction to resist the corrupting influence of power”, “have focused instead on maintaining the status quo and sending money back to their districts in order to get re-elected”, “forgot why they were there”, “continued to allow government to expand”, “refused to make hard choices” and “preferred inaction and complacency to risking losing power in the name of a larger cause”. Mr. Hoffman also must continue to support the President even though he “lacked ideological depth” and “has been overwhelmed by the political process.”

He decries that his political party may be abandoned by God even though it may “lose because of perceived or real scandal, inactivity, fiscal irresponsibility, general incompetence, and an inability to fend off the pathetic and adolescent attacks of the Democrats.”

To prove his party’s adherence to righteousness he invokes Reagan’s family values despite the fact that Reagan married Nancy after she got pregnant (I applaud him for doing the right thing) and his son Michael wrote in his autobiography that he thought his housekeeper was his mother until he was five years old. They didn’t bother to go see their grandchild until he was more than a year old. Fabulous family values. I expect the sputtering flames from Mr. Hoffman to begin soon for how could anyone criticize Ronald Reagan, the closest thing to a deity to ever be in his political party. And Reagan’s “rock solid faith” in his values which allowed him to withstand all of the criticisms of which Mr. Hoffman is so proud? After the Beirut bombing in October 1983 which was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Iwo Jima, where the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers with another sixty Americans injured, what was Reagan’s response? Abandon Beirut. Cut and run. Reagan wrote about the Beirut bombing: “The evidence indicated that both suicide vehicles were driven by radical Shiite fundamentalists suicidally bent on the pursuit of martyrdom. They were members of the same group responsible for the barbarous bombing of our embassy in Beirut the previous April, a group whose religious leaders promised instant entry to Paradise for killing an enemy of Iran's theocracy.” 39 days after the bombing Poindexter and Oliver North began supplying the Iranian fanatics with 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles in the infamous Iran/Contra scandal. Who here wishes to bet me that Oliver North is not a hero to Mr. Hoffman along with President Reagan?

I’ll skip Reagan’s support for the Contras in thier attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua except to note that during the investigation the oversight committee compiled a year's worth of Contra atrocities, which included murder, rape, torture, maiming children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, and amputating genitals. Reagan and Hoffman’s values I’m sure but problematic when equating your side with God.

And poor Rick Santorum! A kook whose views on gays earned him the nickname "Mr. Man-on-Dog." So passionate to explain away the blunder of Iraq that he called a news conference to declare that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, only to have Pentagon officials slap down the claim. Yes, may he “suffer for the good.” His defeat, if it happens, would be wonderful news for Pennsylvania and America although tragic for Mr. Hoffman.

Politics is not religion. Fortunately the founding fathers of the United States understood this. Unfortunately, Mr. Hoffman apparently does not.

Wow, you're so right

Submitted by AMDG on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 2:01pm.

I never referred specifically to Reagan's "family values." I was referring more to his belief in freedom and his abhorrence of tyranny, especially in the form of Communism.

Was he wrong to try and work with the Iranians and "cut and run"? Sure. We were still in the beginnings of dealing with terrorism in the early 1980s. His mistake proved that doing so is wrong, and should be a lesson to those who say we ought to cut and run now.

I don't know enough about the Contras to comment, but I'm pretty sure the Sandinistas were no walk in the park. Remember, they were Communists, Jeff, and Communism is a bad thing, unless you disagree with this axiom.

And these attacks on Reagan's personal life... Was he guilty of being negligent as a parent? Perhaps, but does that mean he's incapable of having sincere beliefs in God, in family, in freedom, in the sanctity of life? We're all imperfect, Jeff, and we often fall short of our own ideals. That's why I base my support on what a political party believes and does, not on how certain individuals fail.

The Republicans are flawed, for sure. So are the Democrats. But the Republicans aren't defending partial birth abortion, trying to change the definition of marriage, spending more time defending terrorists than servicemen, trying to punish successful businesses, and undermining our current efforts in Iraq by constantly criticizing the endeavor and calling for withdrawal, all the while forgetting they voted for the war!

By the way, your attacks on Santorum were adolescent, but typical. Thanks for proving my point.

(Aren't you happy he was wrong about WMD! Yeah! Yeah! How pathetic.)

The Sandinistas

Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 5:01pm.

were Marxists but they were freely elected and there was a specific law prohibiting Reagan from overthrowing them which he undermined using Oliver North. As I recall it was the Boland Amendment or something like that. My objection was only the legality of it all and Reagan lying that he didn't know about it, letting North fall on his sword for him; and anyway it was a long long time ago. Unfortunately, it seems that Ortega won the Nicaraguan election last weekend and even though he has recanted his Marxist ways and embraced capitalism, since Dad observed the election now I guess it will soon be his fault that the Marxists took over Nicaragua again just like he made the Venezuelans vote for Chavez and the Palestinians vote Hamas. Its an interesting world.

Story on Jack Carter

Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 5:10pm.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Nov-04-Sat-2006/news/10626088.html

Good article on Nevada Senate Candidate Jack Carter

Mixing politics and religion

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:32pm.

The problem comes in this "mixing," when the speaker begins to spout, verbally, the religious rules of his order, instead of saying what needs to be done about a particular problem. His religion will often show through anyway, but people won't be offended by that nearly as much as by his trying to convert others with his power. Unless one wants a theocracy instead of a democracy, they cannot be mixed, but must be kept personal. America won't work any better as a theocracy than does Iran, or others. Democracy survives by changing the guard often, as we are about to do, I think.

Jeff C.

Submitted by Tug13 on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 12:31pm.

How do you know so much?? Do you believe that you are right about everything? Where do you get all of this info?? Don't you believe everyone has a right to their opinion, without being "put down?' I enjoy the back and forth comments. But...ttt, don't you think that you might could lighten up? Smile! It's a beautiful day!

Sure, have your opinion

Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:00pm.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion and they are welcome to them. I am just tired of the implication that the Republican Party is God's party. It is no secret that I am a liberal democratic but you may not know that I am also a born-again Christian. Much of Mr. Hoffman's writings imply to me that he believes that my being a liberal or a Democrat is imcompatible with being a Christian. The fault may be mine, he may not be implying it but I infer it from his comments from this and many previous letters. You may be right about the need for me to lighten up though. I have noticed that when I present a list of documented facts in response to a blog here, the comments end or digress into insult. For instance in a letter of mine published in the same edition here, I quoted President Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, the White Hose web site and the Defense Department and was called a terrorist appeaser for it in the blog. Go figure. Frankly, in case you havn't noticed, this newspaper is a tough one on liberals or Democrats and spouts a lot of nonsense in it's letters to the editor and editorially in my opinion. Its a fine newspaper though and I too enjoy the back and forth. On the other hand, if you can't stand the heat don't write the letters. From his previous postings, I believe that Trey is exceptionally well qualified to stand up for himself and to defend his positions. I will provide references for any fact anyone wishes to challenge.

WOW Mr. Carter born again christian

Submitted by thebiggun on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 7:41pm.

A liberal democratic you are, a born again christian you claim to be. I remember reading in the paper a year or two back that your family called the police Nazi's when they came and arrested your son. Now what born again christian family could have those words come out of their mouths?

Silly comment thebiggun

Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 12:28pm.

At first I was just going to ignore the comment because I thought it was just silly. However, I re-thought and responded to give you a chance to explain where in the Bible it would preclude the comments. I'll be sure to check back again, although I admit it will be with trepidation, fearing for my soul and in angst, awaiting the brilliance of your theological argument.

Christianity and Abortion

Submitted by AMDG on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 3:22pm.

Jeff,

If you are born-again, how do you reconcile your faith with same sex marriage and abortion?

I believe that God does not want us killing babies in the womb. There are no exceptions to this. I also believe he created man and woman to have a conjugal relationship in the confines of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is therefore wrong, as is homosexual sex. I know this sounds simplistic, but based on biblical teaching, traditional Christian teaching, and the natural law, I believe these teachings are truly unassailable.

Curious to hear your viewpoint.

(BTW, you're right: I can handle the heat! Don't always enjoy it, but I know if I'm gonna open my big trap in a public forum I'm going to get nailed.)

Hey THoff

Submitted by kevin king on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 9:17am.

Just curious. As an aggressive promoter of geopolitical change through warfare (even pre-emptively like Iraq), do you think, perhaps, that 500lb freefallers, 1000 pound airbursters, LGBs, JDAAMS, and thousands and thousands of rounds of ball amunition, rockets, and mortars, on many occasions, kill children both in and out of the womb? But there are as you say "no exceptions to this." Hmmm... Please help me reconcile pro war and death penalty Christians with the "culture of life" argument. I can't even reply to your last Letter to the Editor. It had me laughing until I peed myself.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King
one of those military guys you don't understand..

Hey KKing

Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 2:04pm.

In war, there is no doubt innocents die. Does that mean we ought never to wage war, no matter the cause? Of course not. We are morally obligated to limit civilian casualties as much as possible, and, perhaps I'm naive, I believe we try to do so.
The difference between innocent casulties in war and abortion and terrorism, for that matter, is simple: in war, killing innocents is an unintended consequence of prosecuting war; in abortion and terrorism, killing innocents is the primary purpose of the act.
The intention behind the person with the weapon (be it gun, IED, or forceps) is key to the distinction.
That is why it is possible to be against abortion but for the death penalty. Killing a fetus is taking an innocent life; killing a murderer is a justifiable penalty and precaution.
That's why in the OT, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" ought to read "Thou shalt not murder," because murder, defined as the intentional taking of innocent life, is a crime, whereas executing criminals, killing an enemy on a field of battle, killing an attacker of your family, or even accidentally killing innocent civilians, is a legitimate, if unfortunate, undertaking necessitated by man's fallen nature and the consequent disruptions of order that follow.

I hope you were able to change your pants. Perhaps you can come up with a cleverer retort in the future.

Murder vs killing

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 1:02pm.

You just don't understand: to drop bombs on cities or towns until you kill 100,000 people is not the same as standing behind a big rock and slayings 10,000 Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass.
The bombing is killing for self defense; the jaw bone slaying is murder!
Thou shalt not kill means to not murder. That begs for a definition of "murder." It is whatever the law says it is. That begs for whose law. And the merry-go-round goes round and round........
Now, if 1000 Kurds threaten your life by firing at your vehicle, as they did Saddam, then he can torture and kill as many of them as he can find for doing that, he says. We are also still hunting the "others" who killed President Kennedy, too.

Murder vs killing

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 1:01pm.

How about divorce?

Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 11:24am.

I would support some type of civil union short of marriage that confers on gays the same property rights as I have. Frankly, same sex marriage is not a big issue for me and I would be content for marriage to be strictly left up to the church and excluded from the government. If some church denomination wanted to claim the right to perform a same sex marriage... then, well... freedom of religion and I would wish that that would be separate from the as now automatically granted rights vis-a-vis government. Simply separation of church and state. I am opposed to abortions but I don't find much about them in the Bible except in Exodus 21 where they seem to be treated as a property crime. I am not making light of the most contentious issue in politics nor am I challenging your interpretation of God's will, just pointing out that it is not mentioned much in the Bible. However, what is mentioned over and over and over is adultery, including, of course, in the Ten Commandments. In fact, it is so prominent that even Lynn Westmoreland remembered it on the Colbert Report. So as I asked below: Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Would you support a law banning divorced people from remarrying as God so clearly expressed? If not, how can you explain your selective morality? Why are divorced people remarrying not on the Republican list of sex crimes?

Curious to see if you're going to use my wishy-washy same-sex marriage argument.

Peace Through Strength!

Avoiding the issue

Submitted by AMDG on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 9:11pm.

Jeff,
Your argument about same sex marriage was wishy washy. You kind of punted by saying it shouldn't be a matter of the state. I disagree with that, too. Protecting the public welfare is part of the state's responsibility and if a legislature or populace votes to ban same sex marriage, they are acting responsibly.

Anyway, abortion not being in the bible doesn't mean it's open to interpretation by Christians. Abortion was considered obviously wrong from the beginning. The Didache, the 1st century summary of Christian teachings, proclaimed it was wrong, and the Catholic Church and all other churches, until the last 50 years, also held it to be morally wrong. The commandment prohibiting murder is sufficient, especially combined with the bible's many references to God "knowing us from the womb" and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. We've only begun to consider abortion to be okay as our culture has secularized and used self-centered, relativistic philosophy to rationalize it. But, as a Christian, I would expect you to be a little more upset about the taking of innocent life.

Regarding your statements about adultery, the state does prohibit re-marriage when a couple has not been legally divorced. The Catholic Church upholds CHrist's admonition by not permitting remarriage until an annulment has been obtained.

"Would you support a law banning divorced people from remarrying as God so clearly expressed? If not, how can you explain your selective morality? Why are divorced people remarrying not on the Republican list of sex crimes?" No, of course not. Marriage is not only a sacred institution; it is also secular. Government has a right to regulate marriage in accordance with society's changing mores, and even has the right to legalize same sex marriage. I don't have to agree with it and I certainly disagree with how the courts have assumed the right to adjudicate this issue in spite of the will of the people and legal precedent.

Adultery is a sin, but is it a "sex crime"? I think not. Prederasty, rape, child pornography, those are sex crimes. I would think you could distinguish those. If I were to dismiss everyone guilty of sin for political office, I would not only have no politicians to support, I would be a hypocritical fool.

Now, I do believe that there are many people who are "living in sin" because their divorce is not licit in the eyes of God, but most of them are doing so out of ignorance and so cannot be held responsible (you must be aware something is a sin for you to be culpable for it).

I lament society being more lax about divorce, but not stupid enough to take it out on individuals who know no better. Nor would I want to force society to revert to traditional Christian morality through judicial fiat (unlike the left, who uses judicial fiat to advance their agenda).

Was that my point?

Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 11:20am.

Interesting. And I don't think I disagree with any of it. However, my point was to draw a comparison between the issue of same sex marriages being condemned because of immorality and divorcees remarrying getting a complete pass when it seems explicitly clear that the Bible teaches it is immoral. The fact that the state allows immorality doesn't seem relevant to me and I think we could both make a long list along those lines. It seems to me that you have based your argument for state intervention against same-sex marriages on morality as expressed in the Bible. To me, that is a perfectly acceptable position which I can respect. But how is it not hypocritical not to also want state intervention against remarriage after divorce. It still seems like moral relativism. An interesting thought experiment. However, I must go now to prepare a response to a wild-eyed right-winger who wrote a letter to the editor about me.

Peace.

Sin is relative

Submitted by AMDG on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 3:16pm.

Jeff,
I'm not a relativist, but certain sins are worse than others. In the OT, divorce was permitted, but homosexuality was not. Divorce was not seen as a sin.
In the NT, Christ restricted the terms for divorce, but did not condemn it outright. He did talk about how adultery resulted from an "unlawful marriage", but the same would have been true in OT times if the divorce hadn't been done properly.
In any case, my opposition to same sex marriage isn't purely biblical or Christian. It's also based on natural law. Just looking at the bodies of men and women you can see how we are supposed to be joined together. The rightness of this arrangement is born out by our ability to create new life as a result of that union. Same sex couples cannot do that because by nature, their bodies were not meant to come together in that way. Sure, they can do so, but is it natural or good? I think not.
Sexuality, by its nature, is unitive and procreative. Unitive in that it bonds in love, procreative in that it creates new life. When either one of the components is missing, sexuality is being abused and often results in negative consequences.
Since same sex couples cannot by nature partake in the procreative aspect of sexuality, their union is not complete, not natural, and not good.
Again, going back to divorce, it is not strictly-speaking sinful or wrong. Only when it is undertaken improperly does it become problematic. Same sex unions are always and in every way condemned by the bible, so it's not hte same thing. Trying to equivocate them is illogical and, frankly, a little strange coming from an intelligent man like yourself.
Make sure you put that right-winger in his place!

I have not been clear

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 9:14am.

Re-reading my post I concede that I have not been clear. It is not the divorce that I object to, it is the hypocracy of the Republicans opposition to same-sex marriages (which I do not support) based on their alleged moral outrage when at the same time ignoring the clearly stated immorality of adultery. My suspicion is that a lot of the sound and fury is... wait for it.... political! However, it has turned out to be a fabulous issue for y'all so I can hardly blame you for jumping all over it. I wasn't trying to equivocate and be illogical, just arguing hypothetical questions and positions, some of which I do not agree with, for the purpose of futher nuancing the points.

Rules (religious-christian-baptist)on divorce and marriage

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 12:51pm.

Does the "bible" (old or new) lay out such laws for people then, or now? Or, both? Did the man control the situation then? Was there
any record of such marriages and divorces as we now have. In other words did they comply then to the same rules as we say we must comply now? Were Adam and Eve "married, and was it recorded for legal purposes? To be really clear with my question: when these men in the bible are quoted as to how to handle marriage and divorce then, are also saying that we have altered that somewhat to suit today's "understandings"? What about those dudes that had hundreds of wives and concubines? Did the rules apply to them, or just to the peons? Really not trying to be "smart," just unanswerable for me for something we put such importance in now. One more thing: is someone like the Colorado preacher supposed to be able to preach all that he did, fool and confound thousands of people, and then go to "school," and be put back to work somewhere, or should he serve some time? These kind of farces are what caused the "conservatives" to be "thumped" this week!

Yes, Adam and Eve were married

Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 1:36pm.

And yes it was recorded in the Bible in Genesis 2:25 where they are referred to as man and wife. Since there were only the two of them though, it was probably not recorded in anticipation of any legal complications. At the time, everyone knew about it.

But Adam was reluctant about it

Submitted by muddle on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 5:50pm.

Here are his diary entries from their first week together (Mark Twain):

MONDAY.--This new creature with the long hair is a good deal in the way. It is always hanging around and following me about. I don't like this; I am not used to company. I wish it would stay with the other animals. . . . Cloudy today, wind in the east; think we shall have rain. . . . WE? Where did I get that word-- the new creature uses it.

TUESDAY.--Been examining the great waterfall. It is the finest thing on the estate, I think. The new creature calls it Niagara Falls-- why, I am sure I do not know. Says it LOOKS like Niagara Falls. That is not a reason, it is mere waywardness and imbecility. I get no chance to name anything myself. The new creature names everything that comes along, before I can get in a protest. And always that same pretext is offered--it LOOKS like the thing. There is a dodo, for instance. Says the moment one looks at it one sees at a glance that it "looks like a dodo." It will have to keep that name, no doubt. It wearies me to fret about it, and it does no good, anyway. Dodo! It looks no more like a dodo than I do.

WEDNESDAY.--Built me a shelter against the rain, but could not have it to myself in peace. The new creature intruded. When I tried to put it out it shed water out of the holes it looks with, and wiped it away with the back of its paws, and made a noise such as some of the other animals make when they are in distress. I wish it would not talk; it is always talking. That sounds like a cheap fling at the poor creature, a slur; but I do not mean it so. I have never heard the human voice before, and any new and strange sound intruding itself here upon the solemn hush of these dreaming solitudes offends my ear and seems a false note. And this new sound is so close to me; it is right at my shoulder, right at my ear, first on one side and then on the other, and I am used only to sounds that are more or less distant from me.

FRIDAY. The naming goes recklessly on, in spite of anything I can do. I had a very good name for the estate, and it was musical and pretty-- GARDEN OF EDEN. Privately, I continue to call it that, but not any longer publicly. The new creature says it is all woods and rocks and scenery, and therefore has no resemblance to a garden. Says it LOOKS like a park, and does not look like anything BUT a park. Consequently, without consulting me, it has been new-named NIAGARA FALLS PARK. This is sufficiently high-handed, it seems to me. And already there is a sign up:

KEEP OFF THE GRASS
My life is not as happy as it was.

SATURDAY.--The new creature eats too much fruit. We are going to run short, most likely. "We" again--that is ITS word; mine, too, now, from hearing it so much. Good deal of fog this morning. I do not go out in the fog myself. This new creature does. It goes out in all weathers, and stumps right in with its muddy feet. And talks. It used to be so pleasant and quiet here.

Papers of the Adam Family

Submitted by iluvthebubble on Fri, 11/10/2006 - 11:40pm.

Muddle, I loved the bits of Eve's autobiography I read in Twain's "Letters from the Earth." Especially her description of their scientific discoveries (Adam's Law of Fluid Precipitation?!?). Hadn't read the bits you quoted here. The letters from Satan to Archangels Michael and Gabriel describing the human world are an interesting perspective on religion, aren't they?

What was marriage in, say, 2000 years before Christ, and then in

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 5:54pm.

100 yers after? Jump a broom; say: I divorce thee, I divorce thee...oh wrong end, or what? Was it recorded and computerized? Can we be judged now on our laws about it instead of what it officially was then?

Abortion in the Bible

Submitted by muddle on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 11:40am.

Jeff,

I must correct you. Abortion is mentioned *nowhere* in the Bible. Nor am I convinced that there are any Bible verses that directly prove the humanity of the fetus.

The case against abortion, if made from the perspective of a Christian worldview, must be done from drawing inferences from that worldview's perspective on the intrinsic value of human life, combined with empirical or matter-of-fact arguments regarding the status of the fetus.

Where I used to teach in Minnesota, my department chair--a dear friend--was pro-choice. I was, and am, pro-life. Interestingly, we agreed on the deepest philosophical points: both of us are Kantians and affirm a "respect-for-persons" ethic. The difference btween us was that, while he did not see sufficient evidence for counting the fetus as the sort of being that is the bearer of rights, I did.

While I have some pretty strong views on the subject, I see abortion as one of those moral issues where there are people of good will on both sides. (For that matter, gthere are also people of ill will on both.)

Image: Child's author Bill Peet's "Whingdingdilly"

There is a Description of an Abortion in the Bible

Submitted by Jeebarena on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 1:39pm.

In Numbers 5:11-31 a woman found in adultery who insisted on her innocence was forced to drink a potion that was a combination of bitter herbs and dirt from the temple floor. The herbs have been identified as being laxatives and mild narcotics. The idea was that if the woman was innocent then her child would live, but if she was guilty then the child conceived from adultery would be, as we put it today, aborted.

So you could make an argument that the Bible endorses Abortion.

Bible and abortion

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 4:02pm.

Long ago I realized that an argument can be made for nearly anything, one way or the other, by searching the Bible. It is especially true now due to computer searches being available. Folks, if you want to base your entire religion on "the Bible," then it has to be an individual thing to do. You get caught in more conflicting areas, than you prove to others that you are right.

Missing the point

Submitted by Jeebarena on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 10:10pm.

It is getting annoying. Every time, I post something rather ingenious, such as the above statement about the Bible and Abortion. People miss the point.

For those who need it spelled out...

Here's the point of the above post.

Pro-Life activists who use the Bible as a base for their argument have no idea that this scripture exists.

Bring it up next time you get cornered by one of them.

Mr. Clever

Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 2:10pm.

So are you saying that the bible condones abortion? Given that the 5th commandment prohibits murder, and murder is simply defined as taking an innocent life intentionally, isn't that sufficient?
The poster who said occurence in the bible is not the same as condonement is correct. To say that just because something is in the bible means it is approved by the bible is nonsense that not even strict literalist would accept.
In any case, regardless of the bible, I would like to know if you think abortion is moral, good, acceptable, etc., and why.

Defined where?

Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 2:59pm.

You stated that, "murder is simply defined as taking an innocent life intentionally".

Oh, here we go

Submitted by AMDG on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 11:34am.

Okay, technically murder is the unlawful killing of another. If a state says its lawful to kill a fetus, then it's not technically murder. I was appealing rather to common sense and had take for granted that a fetus is a person. Unfortunately, we live in a country where this decision has been made by judicial fiat (by Roe v. Wade) and where tradition and the benefit of the doubt have been excluded from the legislative process.
We can debate the personhood of a fetus all day long, but let's just say the science is in my corner on this one and that any attempts to define just when a fetus goes from being a non-person to a person is an exercise in self-serving rationalization, not scientific analysis.

thoffman Questions for you please -

Submitted by mainframecpu on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 2:34pm.

I would like to start out by saying we have absoloutly nothing in common politically so I am certainly not a sycophant.

Your blogs are incredibly well written and (usually) well thought out. You provide a wonderful balance to the blogs and represent conservatives well. I am the one who's statement that occurence in the bible is not the same as condonement. I appreciate your support. It is refreshing to see someone disagree without turning the argument personal.

All of that being said - what the heck is in your coffee that makes you a conservative? Seriously though - I have a couple of (hopefully) thought provoking questions for you:

Does your religion guide and shape your politics?

Do you feel it is possible to seperate the two?

Do you feel like a national goverment should be based on religous principle?

If so - whose/which religion and why?

If not, why do you base your political views on religeous dogma?

What about our forefathers' concerns of religious endorsement?

Stirring the pot-
MainFrame

Coffee

Submitted by AMDG on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 11:44am.

First, I drink decaf only, so there can't be much causation there.

1. Of course my religion guides and shapes my politics.
2. Of course it's possible to separate the two. That's where JeffC is rather ridiculous. He claims that if I were to base my political beliefs strictly on my religious ones that I should be for outlawing divorce. I realize there is a difference between what civil and criminal law mandates and what religious law mandates. I am not for a theocracy, but we must also acknowledge that law traces its foundation to religious concepts of right and wrong.
3. What do you mean by "national government should be based on religious principle?" Our government already is because it's a religious principle that each man is created equal.
4. I think our government is already based on Judeo-Christian values, although their influence on civil/criminal law and our society is waning. I don't like it, but if that's what the will of the people is, then so be it. So, whereas before it was widely accepted, based primarily on religion but also provable by natural law, that fornication was wrong and should be outlawed, now we no longer believe that, or believe that it's wrong enough to outlaw. So we don't any longer. I think that's bad, but hey, the way to change it is to change people and bring them to God and hope the democratic process works and isn't subverted by liberal jurists.
Anyway, to answer you in the shortest way, I believe in the 2nd amendment, which precludes any one church dominating our government, eventhough it's not hard to argue that Protestantism dominated our legal system for the first 175 years.
The rest of your questions I think are addressed by my answers above. You fall into the typical black/white notion that religious folks like myselves believe in a theocracy, which is rule by clerics, and that the only alternative is a completely secular government where religious influence is outlawed. Hey man, the religion, in the form of Christian ethics and philosophical essentials, is already there. Happily for some, no doubt, that situation is changing.

That's why I became Catholic

Submitted by AMDG on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 9:14pm.

Because the bible is so vulnerable to changing interpretation, God established His Church to be the arbiter of interpretation and right teaching. That Church is the Catholic Church and has been consistent on issues like abortion, marriage, divorce, and morality in general for 2000 years. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

THis is not to say the Church and her members haven't committed errors in their actions and teachings. It's that on matters of solemn faith and morals, the Church's teachings have been consistent because they have been guided by the Holy SPirit.

Back to who goes to heaven

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 7:06am.

If one doesn't know any better than to sin, according to you, then he isn't responsible? Millions of christian leaders say repeatedly that all those who aren't born again (except the Jews) will go to hell. Does this mean the catholics think the rest of christianity is wrong about this?
People keep jumping ship (churches) every few hundred years. It is due to the churches, not the people! Hard to tell what "a church" will look like (the religion, not the building) in a few hundred,or, thousands, years. Does the Holy Spirit only guide catholics? Why does such practices fail so often? I know, we are human.

Heaven

Submitted by AMDG on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 9:11am.

DDF,
Ignorance of sin is not black or white. All men know that murder is sin and other such grievously evil actions are wrong and will be held accountable. My point is that if you don't know something like divorce, when undertaken for the wrong reasons, is a sin because a lot of churches teach that, then it would be unjust for God to hold you responsible.

Not all Christians believe in this "born again" requirement. The Church teaches that as part of a sure path to salvation, being born again through baptism is requisite. But it's exceedingly legalistic and unjust to believe that those who have absolutely no recourse to baptism would go to hell. Perhaps they will, but we cannot say for sure. Christ left us with clear instructions on what we can do to go to heaven. Not following this path, either out of ignorance or intentionally, is taking a risk.

People do keep jumping churches, but that's not Christ's fault nor the Catholic Church's fault. That's a result of original sin and man's pride, which has him believe he knows better than all those who've come before and the bible itself.

Of course the HOly Spirit doesn't only guide Catholics. It guides all Christians and I would say even all people, but to varying degrees. The Holy Spirit has preserved the Catholic Church from teaching error on matters of faith and morals, but obviously there have been many Catholics who have ignored the promptings of the Holy Spirit, just as there are many Protestants. Problem is that Protestants tend to believe that every spiritual uttering they hear is from the Holy Spirit, when in fact that is an impossibility. If that were true, do you think there'd be some 30,000 Protestant denominations? That just goes against logic (would the HOly Spirit really want Christians to be so divided given Christ admonition to be "one in spirit"?).

Back to who goes to heaven

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 7:04am.

If one doesn't know any better than to sin, according to you, then he isn't responsible? Millions of christian leaders say repeatedly that all those who aren't born again (except the Jews) will go to hell. Does this mean the catholics think the rest of christianity is wrong about this?
People keep jumping ship (churches) every few hundred years. It is due to the churches, not the people! Hard to tell what "a church" will look like (the religion, not the building) in a few hundred,or, thousands of, years. Does the Holy Spirit only guide catholics? Why does such practices fail so often? I know, we are human. We make ourselves believe a lot of stuff just to go along with the crowd, don't we. We don't know much.

Inconsistent

Submitted by DragNet on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 9:27pm.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church clery is notorious for their sexual misconduct and immoral stances (supressed gay, abuser priests, clergy having sex on the side, endorsing massacres in the crusades, the infamous Holy See (a.k.a the Inquisition)...and the list is too long to really believe that these men are the keepers of the morals handed down by God.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Inconsistent

Submitted by AMDG on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 9:16am.

You failed to point out how the Catholic Church changed its teachings or taught wrong on faith or morals in its 2000 year history. I never claimed Catholics were infallible. All Christians are sinful and even if they know 100% what the truth is, will still fail to live it (thus proving the doctrine of Original Sin).

When individual members of the Church fail to live according to its teachings, it does not invalidate the teachings. It just proves those people are sinful, which any mature Christian already should know.

The one person who is infallible is the pope, but his infallibility is extremely limited and pertains only to when he teaches authoritatively on solemn matters of faith and morals. This is why the Church has never changed her teachings on such issues as the all-male priesthood, the Trinity, the redemptive nature of Christ's sacrifice, and abortion.

The Bible Endorses.....

Submitted by mainframecpu on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 2:37pm.

"So you could make an argument that the Bible endorses Abortion." Uh.... no.

An 'occurance' does not an 'endorsment' make.

While I hate to discuss religion and politics - I love to shoot 'red herrings'.

Stirring the pot-
MainFrame

In your opinion

Submitted by Jeebarena on Wed, 11/08/2006 - 10:25pm.

Once again, another example of someone missing the point.

There are thousands of examples of individuals who claim that one occurrence in the Bible equals cold hard fact. It happens every day. That flawed reasoning is why I pointed out that scripture that you refer to as an occurrence. According to literalists who believe infalibility of scripture, an occurrent is an endoresment.

Don't argue semantics, it's not a real argument.

Maybe everyone is missing your point ...

Submitted by mainframecpu on Thu, 11/09/2006 - 9:04am.

because it's NOT a point? Here is what you have just said...twice...

"There are thousands of examples of individuals who claim that one occurrence in the Bible equals cold hard fact. ((uh, that is what you are doing here)) It happens every day. That flawed reasoning is why I pointed out that scripture that you refer to as an occurrence. ((uh, I have never referred to any scripture)) According to literalists who believe infalibility of scripture, an occurrent is an endoresment."((This is precisely the argument YOU are making in support of abortion)).

So, according to your "flawed logic" you are saying the bible "edorses" ((to approve, support, or sustain: i.e., to endorse a political candidate.)) murder, molestation, peeking up your dad's skirt (noah), stonings, beatings, crucifixion, adultry, plagues, human and animal sacrifice, shall I continue?

Try making a coherent argument using GOOD solid logic and leave the bible interpretation and red herrings to the Ceflo Dollars of the world.

Stop preaching and start thinking-
MainFrame

One great thing about this Republic we call home.

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Mon, 11/06/2006 - 4:48pm.

You have the right to have your views, and practice your beliefs, while others have that same right.

It's what makes our Constitutional Republic tick.

I realize I'm jumping in here late, forgive me. Smiling

Mixing Politics With Morality

Submitted by muddle on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 11:33am.

Jeff C wrote:

"There are problems when you mix political theory with religion, the most prevalent one being that you begin to think that your side is God’s side and therefore can not be wrong because God side cannot be wrong."

Perhaps he is correct about this. But suppose we alter his comment slightly (changes in CAPS):

"There are problems when you mix political theory with MORALITY, the most prevalent one being that you begin to think that your side is MORALLY CORRECT and therefore can not be wrong because MORALITY cannot be wrong."

This would be an argument for never approaching politics equipped with a moral vision.

But, I submit, the result would be impoverished.

Either Jeff C needs to show how religion and morality would function differently (so that the latter is benign where the former is malignant), or bite the bullet and say that one should never mix morality with politics (and what sense of "should" do we have here if not itself moral?), or abandon the original idea that one's religion should not be brought into the political arena.

Image: Child's author Bill Peet's "Whingdingdilly"

You change my words

Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 2:57pm.

then argue against your own changes after admitting I may be right in the first place. Hmmm. OK though. Most people who are opposed to civil unions for gays cite various Bible passages which clearly denounce homosexuals. Here, however, is a problem with legislating morality by force of government: Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Clearly it is immoral to break one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps your morality is selective or maybe not; since I do not know you I cannot answer that. So I would like to ask you a question. Would you support legislation to make it illegal for divorced persons to remarry or do you support this immoral lifestyle?

Jeff

Submitted by muddle on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 5:47pm.

Nothing in the post really calls for the "Hmmmm." My "maybe he's right" is offered in a purely "epistemic" sense, as in, "I think that such and such is true, but I'm willing to talk about it." The change is to assess whether the form of your argument cn be defended. Read on.

There is a view called "Legal Moralism" which maintains that the immorality of an action is sufficient for making it illegal. I do not defend legal moralism. Actually, for the most part I'm inclined to think that J.S. Mill got it right in ON LIBERTY. Individual freedoms should be curtailed if and only if the actions of the individual cause harm either to other individuals or to societal institutions.

Your question thus utterly misses the point of my post (and lots of other things, too, I suspect).

The reason I "changed your words" is that I wonder whether the FORM of your argument, when supplied with different content, yields absurd results. This is standard philosophical fare.

And you have not yet answered MY question. Which is it? Is having a MORAL vision relevantly different from having a RELIGIOUS perspective? Or should we abandon both? Or were you just confused in the first place?

(A subsidiary question: Suppose I say, "I think that morality dictates A, but I am open to the question of whether I might be mistaken about this." How is this different from saying "I think that God himself favors A but I am open to ...."?)

Meanwhile, please understand that the sort of debate that I am inviting here might equally be urged upon my very best friends. No hostility whatsoever: just an attempt to think together with a view to figuring out what is actually TRUE about such things.

Image: Child's author Bill Peet's "Whingdingdilly"

muddle

Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 7:19am.

By referring to J. S. Mill you have won the benefit of any doubt I may have had. To answer your question, having a moral vision MAY be relevantly different from having a religious perspective although (depending on your religion) I would hope that morality is guided by religion. There are obviously immoral acts which have been supported by religions such as slavery, subjugation of women and the Inquisition. I will entirely skip religions like Islam which beyond dispute can be interpreted to support rampantly immoral acts. My argument is not with interpretations of morality or religion but with the selective interpretation of religion to uphold views which are easy to maintain personally because they do not affect you while ignoring views which do affect you and to then to call for legislating these views. Thus my question. For instance, because of recent events there has been a lot of focus on gays. If you are not gay it is very easy to condemn them but what if you are divorced? Is it hypocritical for a divorced person to condemn a gay person based on Biblical passages while ignoring the Biblical passages about divorce? I would say yes; but I would not want the government to legislate either.

Divorce and Same Sex Unions

Submitted by muddle on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 7:58am.

This is indeed a difficulty.

The problem is that our society has already made a mockery of the sacred institution that is marriage. Depending upon who's doing the calculating, the divorce rate is put at somewhere between 40% and 50%. Only 52% of married people celebrate a 15th wedding anniversary.

The stats are just as bleak among evangelicals. A new book by Ron Sider, THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE, observes that the divorce rate among professing evangelical Christians keeps pace with the national average.

That really sharpens your point, as it shows that many in these churches who are shouting the loudest about "family values" have made shipwreck of their own families.

Further, homsexuality is regarded as a perversion. But the word means to "twist" something from its intended use and to misuse it. The theological grounding, of course, is that human sexuality, as created by God, is properly engaged only within the context of a male-female union.

But on this definition, adultery, casual sex, and, indeed, casual divorce and remarriage are also perversions, as these, too, twist our nature away from the divine design plan.

Does it follow that same sex marriages should be condoned? I cannot follow you there. But you are forcing me to think hard. If I would not condone laws prohibiting remarriage after divorce, why would I endorse legislation banning gay marriages?

One might argue for the legalization of drugs on the following grounds: Alcohol is legal. Further, it is as addictive and dangerous as many or most drugs. If alcohol is legal, then drugs, too, should be legal. But if drugs remain illegal, then consistency demands a return to prohibition.

Oh. My wife and I are coming up on 32 years. We've beat all the odds, as we were married at ages 18 and 19.

Image: Child's author Bill Peet's "Whingdingdilly"

Congratulations on 32 years

Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 9:39am.

We are in a very exclusive club. My wife and I will celebrate our 32nd anniversary soon too! It is my libertarian leanings which lead me away from government intervention in this area. I can at least justify the illegality of drugs on the basis of the harm to the individual and families that they cause. If I had my way, some sort of civil union would be permitted and the question of marriage would be left up to the churches independent of government regulation. I came to this position when a good friend who was gay was dying and his partner was not allowed to make decisions regarding his health during his hospitilization although this was the expressed wish of both. His next of kin, who despised him, was granted that right even though they had not spoken in 15 years. Government is much too intrusive. I basically wish to be left alone by government unless an action of mine negatively affects another.

Jeff C..........Muddle

Submitted by Tug13 on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 10:06am.

Congratulations on your 32 yr anniversary's! My husband and I had just celebrated our 40th when he suddenly passed away. He was 19 and I was 18 when we were married! Enjoy every day together!

Reminds me of an old saying

Submitted by bad_ptc on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 9:30am.

Man made alcohol, God made pot, who do you trust?

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

GOP’s loss of focus on ideological convictions hurts

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options