When you read the comments of the leftists here and M Simon (66) referenced about Soros and his lack of conscience, you can see that rational discussion is unlikely to occur. Can you imagine having a rational discussion with Dr. Lumplevin?

The demise in our ability to have rational debates about complex subjects without impugning each other eliminates the ability to find real solutions.

I for one, will show President Obama as much respect and courtesy as President Bush was shown for the last 8 years. No more, no less.

Does that mean we can call him “Chimpy McBama”, and show pictures of him with a chimpanzee’s face photoshopped on?

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/chasing-ghost-of-climate-change.html

‘”Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to Religeon, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society “is the chief characteristical mark of the true church”2 & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these “that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio3 leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed-4′

Well, there were some calmer heads and Sam Adams does, generally, get it right, but the idea isn’t that we are a Christian Nation but a Westphalian Christian Nation that realizes there must be a divide between secular government and the ecclesiastical sort, because the 30 Years War leaving 15-20% of Europe dead (and with a much higher percentage than that in the Germanies), putting religious bias into law was seen as a lethal activity. Secular government is the common government that can, and indeed does, trace its roots back not only through Christian tradition but, via pre-existing English law, via the Common Law and Nordic tradition.

Noah Webster would look at it thusly on 17 OCT 1787 during the back-and-forth on the Constitution:

“Of all the memorable eras that have marked the progress of men from the savage state to the refinements of luxury, that which has combined them into society, under a wise system of government, and given form to a nation, has ever been recorded and celebrated as the most important. Legislators have ever been deemed the greatest benefactors of mankind—respected when living, and often deified after their death. Hence the fame of Fohi and Confucius—of Moses, Solon and Lycurgus—of Romulus and Numa—of Alfred, Peter the Great, and Mango Capac; whose names will be celebrated through all ages, for framing and improving constitutions of government, which introduced order into society and secured the benefits of law to millions of the human race.

This western world now beholds an era important beyond conception, and which posterity will number with the age of Czar of Muscovy, and with the promulgation of the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai. The names of those men who have digested a system of constitutions for the American empire, will be enrolled with those of Zamolxis and Odin, and celebrated by posterity with the honors which less enlightened nations have paid to the fabled demi-gods of antiquity.

But the origin of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC is distinguished by peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by fear and necessity—the governments have generally been the result of a single man’s observations; or the offspring of particular interests. IN the formation of our constitution, the wisdom of all ages is collected—the legislators of antiquity are consulted—as well as the opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In short, in it an empire of reason.”

Reason and judgment are necessary in having faith and common government, and that common government takes wisdom from all sources as we may not discern in which way the Almighty gives us direction. We cannot say where wisdom will show up, and religion cannot be excluded as a source of it… nor can it be seen as the sole source of it as there are so many religions that coming to common government requires more than *just* religious basis for laws, but reasoned judgment to ensure that there is tranquility and justice in that law when applied to peoples of many faiths in a diverse land.

If you try to remove religion from government, you remove government *itself* because there is so much wisdom from multiple religions that to remove religion makes us poorer. Our agreement, as citizens, is to have a reasoned and rational basis for common government that is tied to that common agreement. We remember that while many founders were Christians, that they also had tart words for each other’s religious views, with Jefferson going to annotate his own bible to ‘correct it’ as he saw fit to do. That is the strength of America: not setting doctrine, but learning from it to form better government for everyone and ensuring that no religion is slighted, including those holding none. And as we are a majority believer Nation, then the tone is reflected of the general belief.

Do give Sam Adams his fair due and also acknowledge his lacks and limitations. That is what makes him great – not just the good but in coming to work with the negatives and *still* govern well… until, of course, his governorship started to cause the Shaysite Rebellion. But that is the city vs. rural problem we live with to this day.

While that’s a wonderful theoretical view, in practice it doesn’t work that way. Unless there are term limits on the Senate, you have a beyond rich nobility passing out rewards according to their own agendas rather than according to the common good.

Why, for example, is the USPS perpetually in the red and yet staffed by well paid unionized employees rather than being staffed for the most part by those who are in poverty and in need of work? Lower wages there would allow for more employees and more jobs rather than more unearned income. Unearned income is a great evil in the eyes of those who demand higher and more progressive taxation, yet they have carefully constructed a huge class that exists on unearned income. That, in and of itself, is clearly an agenda and not an agenda intended to do the most good for the nation as a whole.

As much as I hate to say it, McGovern’s approach would have done less harm and would have been better in the long run than what we ended up with due to the inability of the conservatives in this country to deliver enough improvement and systemic reform to retain the majority in the years since then.

Regards

Unity? No! I welcome views from the other side as long as they are on point and not derogatory. Every elected official needs to be questioned. It’s a check on his policies. I’ve never agreed 100% with an elected official. There have been times when someone with opposing views from my own has given me reason to change my mind. That was done with logical thinking and adult conversation. With name calling and nonfactual information the listener will shut down.

Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam.

“If you give alms openly, it is well; but if you do it secretly and give to the poor, that is better. – (Qur-an 2:271a)”

Perhaps in other countries people prefer to give charity secretly rather than an ostentatious display of their munificence.

Also the problem with private giving as opposed to state provision, is that it becomes the sole purview of the rich – ie those with money decide on who will receive their generosity. This is hardly a democratic distribution.

If the state provides for it citizens then it provides equally without it being simply the plaything of the rich, who may have their own particular agendas they wish to champion.

This is how Obama’s people get help think how many food banks or kids could have been helped for 10 million but tax the suckers is what they say not what they believe in true help for people.