TexasCHLforum.com

marksiwel wrote:Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

But it is still a belief system. You believe there is no God, which is certainly your right under the 1st Amendment, because you can't empirically prove it to be true. Thus, atheism still has the central characteristic which atheists object to in religion — faith.

Really when the governments backs Non-Religious (Atheists) law suits its because you don't see Catholics suing about using public funds for setting up The Nativity on the Statehouse lawn, the people to bring these lawsuits to court generally arent religious. DO YOU see a Problem with using My tax dollars to pay for a Christmas Tree? or a Kwanzaa Quilt (or whatever it is they use)

I'm not asking for you to pay for anything. I would like the right to use public land on which to express my faith (with a creche at Christmas, paid for out of my own funds, for example), but I certainly would equally support your right to also use public land on which to express your faith in the absence of a Deity. But when atheists sue the government to stop it from selling a 200 square foot piece of desert in California, 25 miles from the nearest highway, to a private party, so that a cross memorializing WW1 dead which was erected way back in 1934 for that purpose could remain in place, a line in the sand has been crossed. That cross cost neither you, nor any other taxpayer a single thin dime. It was paid for, erected, and maintained by volunteers on a ridiculously small patch of government owned desert that literally nobody knew about for decades, except the people who erected it and their families, until one busybody atheist with an axe to grind against people of theistic faith heard about it. Then the lawsuits began. The government, seeking resolution, offered to sell that tiny plot of land to a private consortium so that the monument could remain. The atheists sued again under the principle that the government's willingness to sell this insignificant patch of desert amounted to a violation of the establishment clause. Now that cross is standing encased in a ridiculous wooden box, 25 miles away from the nearest highway, out in the middle of the Mojave desert, thanks to atheists who have nothing better to do than crap on other people. I am not even remotely sympathetic to those particular atheists or to their cause — except to the extent that it so completely illustrates just how badly they need to be right with God.

As others have pointed out, this thread is approaching dangerous territory from a board rules perspective. I apologize for my part in that. Good luck with your post-modern thing. I hope it leads you to a brave new world. I'm skeptical that it will.

marksiwel wrote:America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

Exactly! Which is why the religious are angered with the government backs lawsuits brought by atheists. Atheism is a religion, as much as any other religion. Atheists believe in something which they can no more empirically prove than any religious person can empirically prove their faith. Intellectually honest atheists — and there are many out there like this — will admit this about their belief system. Government backing of atheism violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, but it happens all the time (like forbidding a high school valedictorian speaker to talk about the role that faith played in his or her life). When an atheist brings a suit about that, it 1) violates the freedom of speech clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment rights, and it violates the establishment clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment clause.

This stuff cuts both ways.

marksiwel wrote:

bdickens wrote:"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)

or prevent the free exercise thereof.

The establishment clause does not exist in a vacuum. It's like the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms [which] shall not be infringed doesn't exist to preserve a right to go duck hunting. It exists to ensure that The People will always be armed. For people of faith, we see the right to the free exercise of our religion prevented by the state all the time. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't going on.

marksiwel wrote:I cant stand the Religious right in this country and how they turn separation of church and state into a "War on Christmas"

With all due respect, that particular piece of analysis is as shallow and simplistic as that of which you accuse the religious right. But, you are young still (25), and maybe when you get to be more than twice that age, like me (57), you'll take a somewhat more charitable view of those with whom you do not share a particular spiritual viewpoint.

I would highly recommend a book for you to read: What Americans Really Want...Really: The Truth About Our Hopes, Dreams, and Fears, by Dr. Frank Lunz. Lunz has run surveys and focus groups for republicans and democrats alike, and he is also frequently hired by some of the nation's largest corporations (and unions), and he has compiled quite a list of what Americans really do want. As a 25 year old, you will probably find much in there with which you'll agree. You'll also find stuff in there that will give you the fantods. I had exactly the same reactions, coming from my own older perspective.

But the bottom line is this, people of faith - whatever faith - view their world through the lens of that faith, and it tends to inform their politics. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact, and it has always been so in this country, all the way back to the founding fathers, including John Adams, who famously said:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

..and..

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 religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

..and less you think that Adams was some kind of Christian bigot, he also said:

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

I'm just sayin'...

austinrealtor wrote:As for this Obama vs. Fox News tit-for-tat, my personal take:

Fox News is absolutely unequivocally biased toward the conservative right. MSNBC is absolutely unequivocally biased toward the liberal left. It's as obvious to me as the sky is blue.

So what? Don't like one, then watch the other. Don't like either, then watch something else.

Obama Administration criticizing Fox News while giving a two-hour audience to Olbermann and Maddow? Same thing as Bush Administration criticizing the New York Times and giving exclusive interviews to Fox News.

{snip}

I have a degree in Journalism and worked in newspapers for more than 10 years. So I have some strong opinions about the ever-declining levels of "quality" news coverage in this country. The idiocy of all three major cable news channels mindlessly following that stupid aluminum Jiffy Pop balloon non-stop for hours the other day is just the latest example. The old axioms of television news "If it bleeds, it leads" and "live video trumps hard news. Every time." are more true today than ever before. Throw in "sex sells and political scandal sells out" to the equation, and that's the best you can hope for from most any news source these days. "Quality" news organizations are few and far between these days. Even NPR has lost a lot of its true news talent in favor of mindless feel-good urban liberal "talk".

AustinRealtor, It's not that I think of FoxNews as the only fount of truth, and you're absolutely correct that ALL of the cable news outlets' fixations on the dumbest stories is killing off the newsrooms. It's just that I don't share your perception that this administration isn't any different than any other with regard to adversarial relationships with the press. All administrations learn to be leery of the press, but also most administrations try to maintain the lines of communication, and more importantly, they don't go out of their way to alienate the press. The other networks are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee: if it can happen to Fox News, then it can happen to them too; and they don't like it one bit. Except for Keith Olberman, but he's special and eats his own boogers. He's ecstatic, but that's because he's too dumb to recognize the ideas of precedent and the turning of the worm. Today it's Glen Beck. Tomorrow it's Olberman. The last administration that alienated the press this way was Nixon's, and we all know how well that worked out for him.

Yes, the Bush administration tended to react favorably Fox News for their favorable coverage, but I also recall President Bush giving exclusive interviews to Tim Russert on a channel that was not sympathetic to Bush (MSNBC), because Russert was a consummately professional JOURNALIST, even though he worked for MSNBC, and even though, statistically, he probably held democrat sympathies. The same cannot be said for Russert's replacement Dick Gregory, who wears his sympathies on his sleeve.

And, Bush did not cut off the NYT from access — even after the NYT leaked information with national security implications in its front pages which made life significantly harder for the administration. Now, one can argue about the legality/propriety of the wiretaps in question, but "Top Secret" means "Top Secret," and that has powerful legal implications that are rarely ignored, apparently unless you are the NYT. People who violate that had usually better be prepared to get dragged into court to prove that their violation served the national interest rather than harming it — the alternative being locked up in a cell with a 6'10" repeat felon named Killah and having a woman tattooed on one's back. Bush did no such thing to the NYT, even though some would argue that he had ample cause to do so. And neither did he cut them off from further access to the administration. And neither did he wage a war against them in the media. Why? because even though he might have bitterly disagreed with them, he respected the separation of a free press from the office of the executive.

Obama shows no such respect for the 5th estate, and it is obviously apparent. Heck, even Helen Thomas — no friend of Fox News — is telling the administration that this is a losing proposition for them. But Obama isn't listening, and that is really creepy.

BTW, I spent 9 years working for a newspaper company in Los Angeles.

Hugh Hewitt had an intriguing suggestion a couple of years ago. He pointed out that financial reporters are required by the SEC to reveal whether or not they are vested in any company about which they are reporting. Hewitt suggested that maybe political correspondents ought to be required by law to reveal their party affiliation whenever reporting on American politics. Then their reader/listeners would be able to judge more easily whether the reportage was unbiased.

I like it!

Keith B, are you feeling ignored?

I was wondering what our Obama supporters thought of the following:

It is well known that the administration has been in full attack dog mode against Fox News, calling them "not a news organization." It's even being reported on other networks, so there is no question as to the facts of the case. So given that, and given that NOBODY in their right mind (no pun intended) would call Keith Olberman an objective reporter, what do you make of the following piece of White House hypocrisy?

Obama Meets With Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow
By Noel Sheppard
October 21, 2009 - 19:45 ET
NewsBusters.org

A day after key White House officials declared the Fox News Channel wasn't a news organization, President Obama met with MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Talk about your delicious hypocrisy.

Fittingly, the news was broken by FNC's Bret Baier during Tuesday's "Special Report" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 1:45, h/t Hot Air via NBer Thomas Stewart):

[youtube][/youtube]

BRET BAIER, HOST: And finally, during this morning's off-camera White House briefing with reporters, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the ongoing White House attacks on FOX News Channel.

After being asked about the charge that FOX isn't a real news organization, Gibbs answered, quote "We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

Tapper: "That's a sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from say, ABC, MSNBC, Univision?"

Gibbs: "You and I should watch around 9:00 tonight or 5:00 this afternoon."

Tapper: "I'm not talking about the opinion programs or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?"

Gibbs: "That is our opinion."

Well, the White House's strong opinions about our opinion shows - - Glenn Beck runs at 5:00 p.m. and Sean Hannity at 9:00 p.m. -- apparently do not extend to similar shows on other networks.

A White House official confirms to us that the audience for Monday's off the record briefing with President Obama included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Hmmm. So the White House thinks Fox isn't a news organization because it has a perspective, and specifically points fingers at Beck and Hannity.

What does the Adminstration think Olbermann and Maddow have?

I guess it's not a problem for a new organization and its members to have a perspective so long as it's one the White House shares.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

This administration may be saying it is transparent, but it's just lip service. They aren't even really pretending at it. As a friend of mine on another forum said:

"When this story was first reported on Fox News yesterday, they said the meeting at the White House behind closed doors lasted TWO AND A HALF HOURS.

"What president would have time to meet with selected members of the news media secretly for TWO AND A HALF HOURS?

"But especially THIS president who has so many serious problems on his plate. I wonder when the last time was that he spent TWO AND A HALF HOURS in meetings on the economy, unemployment, the war in Afghanistan?"

Two and a half hours for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, but he couldn't give more than 30 minutes to the General running the WAR IN AFGHANISTAN!!!

He is a political hack playing at being president, but he has underwhelmed so far in actually behaving like a president.

Hey Keith, did I get the ball rolling again?

longhorn_92 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

frazzled wrote:Clearly this thread needs to deviate and pronto to this:

Single malt scotch is fine. However I prefer a nice dark rum, or lighter rum and water myself.

Once again, we must respectfully disagree! Rum is for headaches. But Lagavulin lowland single malt scotch is the nectar of the gods.

It has a deep, peaty, smokey flavor... ...real sippin' whiskey.

Would that be the Lagavulin (16 yr) or the Lagavulin (12 yr -Special Release)?...

I definitely prefer the Lagavulin 16...
might I also suggest the Laphroag (15 yr) - it comes from the Islay Region (as does the Lagavulin).

That would be the 16 year old. I've never even tasted the 12 year old. Does the Laphroag have the same pronounced smokiness as the Lagavulin?

frazzled wrote:Clearly this thread needs to deviate and pronto to this:

Single malt scotch is fine. However I prefer a nice dark rum, or lighter rum and water myself.

Once again, we must respectfully disagree! Rum is for headaches. But Lagavulin lowland single malt scotch is the nectar of the gods.

It has a deep, peaty, smokey flavor... ...real sippin' whiskey.

frazzled wrote:I’m not that certain about that. I’m not certain that persons of a liberal bent are welcome on this board. I’m also not certain that those who present a more moderate view in areas are welcome.
But as I noted, it’s a CHL forum, so I’m personally ok with just talking about CHL related stuff. But as always, if our opinions disagree that’s ok, I respect the poster..except…

Consider yourself harassed!

RightBACKATCHA boyo!

Oh Lordy! Not the dancing guy!

I agree that some of us tend to be firebrands, and that their responses could make a centrist or liberal feel unwelcome. That said, you should resist the temptation to think that firebrands speak for all of us, or even those of us who consider themselves to be very conservative, as do I.

I own a political discussion board, and while the membership is largely conservative, liberals are welcome to join. We enforce pretty stringent civility rules. Occasionally something gets overlooked by my moderators. That probably happens here too on occasion. I find politics to be personally fascinating, but sometimes I wonder if it is worth it to discuss politics with anybody at all. I'm happy for you that you're a "glass is half full" kind of guy. I'm finding it harder to be that way lately.

BillT wrote:Thanks for your thoughts "The Annoyed Man". I can sympathize with your frustrations. I had many similar frustrations during the Bush years and wrote many emails and posted on many blogs with comments as long as yours. I had reservations about Bush since my wife and I had the occasion to meet him while he was governor and campaigning for president. When he learned my wife was from Brasil and tried to speak Spanish with her I began to question his qualifications to be a world leader. It just got worse as time went on. No Sept 11th connection to Sadam, no WMD's etc, and a war that killed thousands of Americans and many times that amount of civilians. I could go on and on but that is behind us now. I made the choice of Obama over McCain. He is not "my guy" , he is my President. George Bush was my President. Obama is your President too. You are a citizen of this country. Give our President a chance. He has not been in office a year and he inherited a Country that was at it's lowest point in modern times. It can't and won't be fixed overnight. But this is a great Country no matter what party is in office. Only through compromise can this Country rise up again to be the envy of the world. Divisiveness just slows or stops the progress that we so desperately need. The glass is half full, not half empty! But then again I am the eternal optimist, it's what gets me through the day!

And Bill, thanks for not taking offense at my reply. Politics is a touchy subject, but I just try and be honest about what I think and respectful of what others think.

As far as giving Obama a chance, I would answer that I would give him exactly the same chance Bush got from the political left, 10 months into his presidency. I am not impressed at this point. OTH, if he can show some spine in foreign affairs, repair the damage he has done to the US/British "special relationship," and show himself to be a little more knowledgeable about, and have greater faith in, capitalist principles, then I could begin to warm up to him.

I would also like to see him emphatically distance himself from the corrupting influences of organizations like ACORN and SEIU. So far, he hasn't.

One thing I would like to see the left STOP doing is accusing principled opposition of racist motives. You know, when that happens enough, then I can only surmise that the accusers are racist in their own assumptions, and it certainly doesn't help endear Obama to me if he won't cowboy up and call that crap exactly what it is. Instead, he sits back and cynically lets that play out, because he knows it is to his political advantage to do so... ...and THAT is racist exploitation. I don't give a rip if the guy's skin is chartreuse. I disagree with him, and it has got nothing to do with his race. If Colin Powell had been running against Obama instead of supporting him (a mistake, in my view), I could have voted for Powell - a man whose "black credentials" are at least as good, if not better, than Obama's and who has vastly more experience in governance and foreign policy, and whose brand of conservatism is at least no more diluted than McCain's (which is pretty weak sauce in a lot of ways). McCain is a bonafide war hero and has given great service to this nation, and I respect him tremendously. But he is also a cranky old poop who is past his prime. I voted for him because he was the best choice given the alternative of a complete unknown with a messianic presence and a charismatic voice and a manifestly naive view of a dangerous world. If it had been Powell running in McCain's place, then I would have chosen him over Obama for the same reasons. That is called "principled opposition," and it has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

cowboymd wrote:TAM. you claiming copyrights on this? I'd like to print it and frame it.

Nah... my opinions are probably worth exactly the cost of the paper you're going to print it on.

For my copyrighted stuff, GO HERE.

frazzled wrote:I try to restrict myself purely to CHL topics at this point. After having been and seen people being blasted on discussions about candidates, positions, events, even commonsensical open carry vs. CHL discussions I find it...prudent to restrict myself to these very narrow topics. Thats fine, but I hold no illusions about political diversity here.

frazzled, I respectfully beg to differ. You say that as if it is the fault of conservatives that this board is not more diverse. How can that logically be true?

Here's what I think about political diversity on this board... Being a "gun rights" and "2nd Amendment" board, it is natural that it will attract more political conservatives than political liberals; because it is an undeniable reality that the vast majority (but by no means all) of the attacks on gun rights and the promotion of ignorance about guns in this country have originated from the political left rather than the political right. Gun rights (along with abortion, and more recently healthcare) are one of the political hotbuttons in this country. So, it is understandable that the members of a pro-gun rights board would represent in greater numbers that political subgroup of Americans who pay greater attention to, are better informed about, and choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, that does not mean that all political or social liberals are against gun rights or CHL, as you so amply demonstrate yourself. But I do think that it is fair to say that the degree to which political/social liberals are represented in the membership of this board is the degree to which they are represented among the pro-gun rights population at large. So, it is not so much that there is a lack of diversity, but rather that the numbers don't lie about who our political friends are regarding gun rights, and that the degree of diversity here is a reflection of that. If more political liberals were friends of the 2nd Amendment, you would find more political liberals among the membership of this board. Diversity should never be legislated. It ought to be representative, no more and no less, of those people who choose to do something, behave a certain way, or believe in a given thing. That's liberty in action.

So all that means with regard to this board's diversity is that political liberalism is a spectrum, just as is political conservatism. For instance, the conservative community tends to be far more supportive of right to life issues than the liberal community; but that does not mean that all liberals favor abortion rights, nor does it mean that all conservatives are pro-life, or that all members of this board are pro-life. If more people who held your general political views supported gun rights and CHL with their actions and their votes, you would see them represented here in larger numbers. They don't, so you don't.

Thus, the degree to which this board is NOT diverse is directly the fault of the degree to which those who hold politically liberal views seek to infringe gun rights, rather than it is to any notion that a liberal who supports gun rights and CHL is not welcome on this board.

Consider yourself harassed!

BillT wrote:I believe there are many issues this Country is facing that are far more important than gun rights and I can't make that my priority when supporting a candidate

That is certainly your right. As long as you OWN your mistakes and dedicate yourself to correcting them if your candidate turns out to be a gun-grabber in fact, then we have no argument. My first vote as a Republican was for Bob Dole, not because I thought he was a spectacular candidate, but because Bill Clinton signed the AWB, and couldn't keep his pants zipped. I had always voted as a Democrat prior to that. And for what it is worth, I agree that the Republican party has relegated itself into insignificance — by trying to be Democrat Lite. As such, I am considering re-registering as an independent also. From now on, the Republican party is going to have to EARN my vote.

That said, I am self-employed and uninsured because insurance companies won't cover me due to previously existing conditions. But if your guy signs a bill into law that penalizes me to the tune of $3,800 per year, enforceable by the IRS, for not having a private insurance policy and being unwilling to accept government insurance, when I am perfectly happy to pay for my own medical care out of my pocket (for a lot less than $3,800 annually, and when I can raise the money needed for a catastrophic event), then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about.

If your guy signs legislation that increase my business taxes in this economy, when I am barely squeaking by, then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about.

Finally, if your guy can't either poop or get off the pot about troop levels in Afghanistan (79 + days and counting since General Crystal's recommendations), causing more American deaths while he waffles, then you and I have a major problem and nothing more to talk about. You are against the war? Fine. Then tell him to bring our boys and girls home NOW. Otherwise, tell him to cowboy up and act like a president who is Commander in Chief and responsible for the safety of the troops under his command while they are fighting on foreign soil.

And I'm not even going to go into him rolling over for Putin and the chicoms; or that he would likely be happier if Israel would simply cease to exist and all those pesky Jews would just roll over; or the FACT that the vast majority of Hondurans (per American friends of mine who actually live there) know that Zelaya is an insane dictator wannabe, but your guy wants him reinstated; or that Ahwannajihad of Iran plays him like a bongo drum; or that he has alienated the Brits, our most important allies in the WOT; or that he won't even call it a WOT anymore; or that he hires a record number of "tsars," particularly those that don't pay their taxes and are known to be affiliated with extreme radicalist causes; or that he is owned by such paragons or morality as ACORN and the SEIU; accepting an admittedly undeserved Nobel prize; sicking his administration attack dogs on the only news outlet that doesn't have its nose far up his posterior (even the allegedly "stoopid" Bush knew better than to get into a p*****g contest with Keith Olberman; and even the noted and very liberal "dean" of the WH press corps, Helen Thomas, has advised the administration to lay off that tactic); etc., etc., etc.

You know what? I voted for George Bush twice. Bush did things that I cannot agree with. But he didn't roll over for this nation's enemies (except perhaps when he "looked into Putin's eyes"), and compared to the "new transparency" of your guy's administration, Bush was the real deal.

I am sure that you are a decent and honorable man. But you put your hope in a man with little experience and a disturbing record of voting "present" rather than getting on the record. He is a cipher, and the only "record" we have to go on are his words. He is a cipher, and a neophyte at governing and at foreign policy. He is learning on the taxpayer dime, instead of having arrived prepared to govern. Please do not take any of this as a flame attack; it is not intended as such. You raised the issues by posting the opening post. I'm merely responding, and this is my 2¢.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.