Rick Perry to host an only-Christians-speak rally

[Bob]

We appear to have a real disconnect in this discussion. I am staunchly in favor of freedom of religion and the rights of everyone to worship how they want and say what the want. That includes Governor Perry. I also prefer leaders with a grasp of the issues and a commitment to the country. People of differing faiths and beliefs can have very similar political views. The flipside is also true. I know people who believe many of the same things I do regarding faith that have vastly differing political views from me. That is ok, if we were all alike this would be a boring world.

I do not agree with you regarding "division" in politics. I prefer individuals who are strong in their principles. If you are strong in your belief system you are naturally going to be reluctant to compromise on those beliefs. I am ok with that. What I view as destructive to our country are those who believe in nothing at their core and will say or do anything to gain power through a political office. Unfortunately we have many of those in office from our local governments right on through state and national offices. Give me a dedicated liberal any day over a wishy-washy conservative.

Finally, I do not view this prayer meeting as "destructve." It is a private event and no one is required to attend. If I were in Houston I doubt I would attend and cannot see any way the event would effect me or my life. The only reason anyone has an issue with it is because of who the sponsor is and the fact that Perry is a conservative politician. I simply cannot see how a politician appearing at an event has any effect on my life except for the fact that you are known by the company you keep. If Perry were appearing at an ACLU event I would feel the same way. The knowledge would make me less likely to vote for him but otherwise I could care less. He is an individual and has every right to associate with whom he chooses.

compromise is at the essence of the genius of our system. compromise is what is needed now and forever. being staunchly opposed to compromise is the essence of being religious. don't think too hard on this.

 

[idlewind]

compromise is at the essence of the genius of our system. compromise is what is needed now and forever. being staunchly opposed to compromise is the essence of being religious. don't think too hard on this.

I rarely think very hard about what you contribute. I did not say I was opposed to compromise I said principle individuals are reluctant to compromise their core beliefs. Or said a different way:

A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practise perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice.
Mohandas Gandhi

and

All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
Mohandas Gandhi

 

[idlewind]

So if I'm to believe you, which I don't, the states have the power to ignore the constitution and set up theocratic facist regimes. Wrap that cross in the confederate flag why don't you.

Do something novel and crack a history book. If you cannot bring yourself to do this then here is the wikipedia condensed version:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.[citation needed]) As of 2010[update] Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provides, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

It is funny that you always run straight to calling people racists and facists when your prejudices and intolerances are exposed

 

[Bob]

I rarely think very hard about what you contribute. I did not say I was opposed to compromise I said principle individuals are reluctant to compromise their core beliefs. Or said a different way:

A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practise perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice.
Mohandas Gandhi

and

All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
Mohandas Gandhi

thank you for the insult. thank you for quoting m. he had some funny things to say about christians. would you like to post his description or shall i? compromise seeks a workable solution between intransigents. intransigent thinking is religious dogma and the entire nightmare of factions of society interjecting their belief systems on others. ask any political science academic about the beauty of our system, and the answer will contain this description of separation,compromise, and balance.

 

[LuciferSam]

Do something novel and crack a history book. If you cannot bring yourself to do this then here is the wikipedia condensed version:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[4] (The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination, and in some cases religious minorities had trouble being recognized at all.[citation needed]) As of 2010[update] Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provides, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[5]

It is funny that you always run straight to calling people racists and facists when your prejudices and intolerances are exposed

When you promote Christo Fascism whether it's sanctioned by the state, local or federal government, I'd have to say the shoe fits rather nicely. Thankfully the federal government, the constitution, and the U.S. supreme court have done a pretty good job of protecting decent people from the rogue statism you and your ilk seem to relish.

 

[idlewind]

When you promote Christo Fascism whether it's sanctioned by the state, local or federal government, I'd have to say the shoe fits rather nicely. Thankfully the federal government, the constitution, and the U.S. supreme court have done a pretty good job of protecting decent people from the rogue statism you and your ilk seem to relish.

Can't you read? I don't know what my "ilk" is, but I specifically stated that I did not wish to return to what was described. I am leery of anything that the state would force on citizens, be it religion or anything else. However, that does not change history no matter how much revisionists like yourself would wish it to be. Recognizing a historical fact is not promoting "chrito fascism" whatever that is.
Try comprehending what you read before you write. If you master the skill you would realize that I am about as far from a fascist/socialist as one could be. If one must label people, I lean more towards the anarchist label than the fascist label. You on the other hand.........

 

[mputnal]

Historical fact: Religion divides people. It is amazing to me that this is so obviously true even in this microscopic discussion. The tone borders on hatred and is full of personal attacks. If that is what being "christian" is all about then I want out.

Historical fact: Politics divides people. Middle class main street moderates are dissappearing right before my eyes. Conservatives have become fundamentalist (no room for compromise). Liberals have become obnoxious keepers of a superior intellect (will not compromise with idiots). If this is what being "principled" is all about then I want out.

Please, this is just one idiot's opinion. Please hurry up and find some quote from another era that supports your position to be "principled", intellectually superior and pretty much out of touch with main street problems.

 

[idlewind]

Historical fact: Religion divides people. It is amazing to me that this is so obviously true even in this microscopic discussion. The tone borders on hatred and is full of personal attacks. If that is what being "christian" is all about then I want out.

Historical fact: Politics divides people. Middle class main street moderates are dissappearing right before my eyes. Conservatives have become fundamentalist (no room for compromise). Liberals have become obnoxious keepers of a superior intellect (will not compromise with idiots). If this is what being "principled" is all about then I want out.

Please, this is just one idiot's opinion. Please hurry up and find some quote from another era that supports your position to be "principled", intellectually superior and pretty much out of touch with main street problems.

Religion does not divide people, intolerance does. And you are absolutely right about attacks being "unchristian." I was wrong for my part and apologize. I am not perfect and feel the need to prove it on occasion.

Politics divide people because the stakes are high and belief systems are ingrained. I see no answer to this except to continue to fight for what I believe. I am not an elected official so the need to compromise is not present. If I were in Miller, Southerland, Nelson or Rubio's shoes I would not have the luxury of fighting to the bitter end.

My concern is main street problems. This entire thread is really out of touch with what is needed in this country. I worry about jobs because although mine is safe for now, if enough people are out of work it will sooner or later effect me. I worry about the debt and deficit and what we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. I worry that government is becoming too big and involved in our everyday lives. What I am not worried about is who does or does not attend a prayer meeting in Texas.

 

[poppy]

Religion does not divide people, intolerance does

Sort of like guns don't kill people bullets kill people.

 

[Miss Kitty]

There is so much good info on this thread, but IMHO the snark that some of you always have to add is childish.