Wednesday's US Presidential Debate...

"I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith." - John Kerry, October 13, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for voicing what should be basic common sense to any American who respects that whole "no law respecting the establishment of a religion" thing that Mr. Bush seems so keen on ignoring.

Actually, Kerry made that statement in the SECOND debate, last Friday October 8th.

And it was about as condescending and pandering as the statement he made during the SAME debate, when he said that by looking around at the audience he figured the ONLY people who would be affected by his proposed tax plan would be himself, President Bush and moderator Charlie Gibson.

Apple

Ooh...I forgot...John Kerry is a practicing Catholic, but he won't push his religion on anyone (especially since he's been lying in bed with Jesse Jackson recently).

I guess that's why he's going against his religion and supporting abortion.

---

Forgive me if I think that values, not an official religion, but values, are something that should be respected in a President.

In last nights debate, President Bush clearly stated how faith is a part of his life.

To which, Senator Kerry has countered, as he has in each of the debates..."I am a catholic...BUT..."

---

I guess I'm missing how Bush is somehow legislating his faith...by being pro-life? Anti embryonic stem cells? These are questions of ethics; not necessarily deriving from his religion.

Man the ideological grunt foot soldiers of both power bases are out on full force tonight...especially me......

However, here is a real question. WHY are you voting for whomever and please, don't just say "the other guy is a flip-flopper"...really, I'm interested as to why we support who we support.

I admire the fact that Kerry doesn't allow his religion to dictate his position on abortion.

Apple will remember, I think, that when JFK ran for President, his opponents voiced the concern that "He would be taking orders from the Vatican".

And one of the things that scares me about Bush is that he thinks he's doing "God's work." Quite frankly, I don't like the idea at all that Bush allows his religious beliefs, or his "faith" to enter into his decision making process.

First step on the "slippery slope": God's work.
Last step: A sanctioned state religion.

I must be missing the point on the above regarding jesse Jackson. What is it?

If either of the candidates are appealing to voters based on religion, it's Bush in a landslide.

Why don't you go check out the 834793 other threads on the subject..

Well, why don't you start by giving us your view first.

DJ--I am a Catholic and pro-choice. I support abortions. Does that mean I'm going against my religion too? :rolleyes: Excuse me for letting a woman make the choice. I think it's funny how much spending and time that Bush puts into abstinence (SP?) programs. Does he honestly think teenagers are going to wait to have sex? Seriously. It's unbelievable.

This is the one thing I dislike so much about Bush. He thinks he has the right to control the people. He thinks he can tell people what sex to marry and he thinks he can tell women they must have a baby if they have consensual sex. I, like John Kerry, oppose gay marriage, but, we don't need to ban them! If 2 men or 2 women want to get married, then let them get married. It's not going to do anything to you.

I find it unbelievable that some people even are against abortions in cases of incest or rape. Thankfully, Bush is atleast for that. I don't see how he can support that, but he's against abortions with consensual sex. If he thinks an abortion is murder, then why isn't it murder in cases of incest or rape? You either support it 100 % or you're against it 100 %. Like I said, teenagers are going to experiment and other accidents can happen with people. Instead of promoting abstinence, he should do what John Kerry has been doing. He should promote contraceptives. -Pat

I'm not wild about either one. I think it's a damn shame that these two are the best we have to offer as potential leaders of our country and the free world.

But there's nothing wrong with being in favor of one guy because you like the other guy less.

I support Kerry because of how I feel about Bush. I don't have much to say that's positive about Kerry, though. I just don't have as much to say about him that's negative.

Does this moronic statement even merit a response?


Didn't think so.

Does this moronic statement even merit a response?[/b][/quote]I guess I miss your point again.

What makes Pat's statement any more moronic than yours?

My point is more that, since the debate has come up, and questions of Bush's faith, as well as concerns over the "religious" vote, Kerry has been tight with Mr. Jackson. This sways not only some religious votes, but clearly the African-American vote in some ways.

Does this moronic statement even merit a response?[/b][/quote]I guess I miss your point again.

What makes Pat's statement any more moronic than yours? [/b][/quote]Last time I checked, the Catholic church is vehemently against abortions of any kind.

Again, I didn't think I needed to clarify. Clearly Pat IS going against his religion.

My point is more that, since the debate has come up, and questions of Bush's faith, as well as concerns over the "religious" vote, Kerry has been tight with Mr. Jackson. This sways not only some religious votes, but clearly the African-American vote in some ways. [/b][/quote]So any candidate that aligns himself with any specific person or group is pandering to the supporters or members of that particular group then, right?

That's nothing new, BTW. When both candidates take a strong pro-Israeli stance, they're appealing to the Jewish voters. Bush's comment in the first debate about how a free Iraq would support Israel was patently ridiculous. I don't care what type of government you have in Iraq, they're still gonna be Arabs, and they're still gonna hate the Israelis. Clearly, he was pandering to the jewish voters with that remark.

I think it would be ridiculous to deny that Bush is absolutely seeking the support of the religious right. That's one of the things about him that scares me.

I too admire Kerry's statement regarding religion and also remember as a kid, during the JFK era, other kids telling me that the Pope was gonna move in the White House if JFK won. :rolleyes:

No man (or woman) should have to come out and defend why his religion or faith, is what it is. It's a personal belief or non-belief and everyone has a right to that. Just as no one should try to push their religious or nonreligious beliefs on someone else. I think Kerry explained it beautifully.

DJ, I was born/raised catholic, and although I admit, that I skip a Sunday mass from time to time, and am prolife, although, that and stem cell are very conflicting for me, as I am not without the understanding reasons why one might support them. How can anyone judge whether John Kerry is a "good" Catholics or not???? I don't want to get into a religious debate, but only want to point out that to "judge" Kerry because he won't let his religious beliefs interfere with the abortion issue is unfair to him and just another reason to thrash him IMHO.

But like PLaw, I too am concerned about Bush using his newfound faith and have heard the "rumor" that "God" sent him on this mission. Perhaps he should come out and explain that to the American people?? :rolleyes:

I don't get the Jesse Jackson remark either.

TIS

Does this moronic statement even merit a response?


Didn't think so. [/b][/quote]What a cheap shot. Because I support something that you BELIEVE is 'murder,' it makes me go against my religion. I am very faithful and I believe we're here to make our own decisions--not have someone make them for us. -Pat

The only thing Kerry's statement says to me is that he still cannot voice an opinion. Everything he says can be taken one way or another. He's so careful not to tick anyone off. Thank God for real men like G.W. He knows how he feels and isin't afraid to say it. Even if I don't always agree with Bush's point of view, I always respect how he does it and that he does it with conviction.

I'm sure Kerry is a great and smart man but he never comes off as a leader to me. I don't want someone who is going to back down everytime someone critizes him.

I'm also a firm believer in the seperation of church and state. However I find it interesting when people claim their religion does not affect their decision making process. How is this even possible? So to me Kerry's statement shows me that he is either lying or has no backbone. Either way he is just trying to say the right thing. Bush, however, knows we don't want to hear that his religion affects his decision making process, but its the truth, so he says it. I can appreciate the honesty.

Ok there ya go, a very small reason why I am supporting Bush.

And that is what scares me about Bush.

That he won't go against his religion, but, rather, will let his religious beliefs determine his position on the issues.

What are we gonna do if we ever have a Christian Scientist run for President who comes out against health care? You won't support him. I won't support him. But do we want candidates who have thier positions dictated by religious beliefs?

I don't want politics mixing with religion. Period.

I think it requires a great deal of "backbone" to go against the teachings and instructins of your religion if you think they are wrong.

Does this moronic statement even merit a response?


Didn't think so. [/b][/quote]What a cheap shot. Because I support something that you BELIEVE is 'murder,' it makes me go against my religion. I am very faithful and I believe we're here to make our own decisions--not have someone make them for us. -Pat [/b][/quote]A faith based upon convenience is an empty faith.

What I'm saying is this - in my opinion, it is going against the Catholic church (and what I'm trying to explain) to support abortion. It is your right to do so.

But don't go spouting how catholic you are, or how John Kerry is a dedicated catholic, if he supports a.) the infanticide of millions and b.) the destruction of embryos for a purpose that has been shown successful in adult stem cells.

Either way, this goes against the teachings of the catholic church.

I'm not going to get on my soapbox and say "I'm a great catholic" or something, it's not my job to preach. But what I am saying is that for going around and saying that he is catholic, John Kerry does not stand with the catholic church.

And don't say I "believe" that abortion is infanticide, it is. The meeting of sperm and egg at conception produces, guess what, a 46 chromosomed organism, which is unique to humans. It's a human being. Not a fucking meatball you can rip out and destroy, but a human life.

I don't want to get into an abortion debate, I just had to point out that I was annoyed by that statement Pat.
Abortion is not a black and white issue, you can't say you're either 100% for it or 100% against it. There are way too many instances for it to be that way. Yes I think abortion is wrong, but if I was raped I would get an abortion. So where does that put me?
I believe in choices, which means the choice of not putting yourself in the type of situation where you would need an abortion. I do believe in abortion should be a choice only in instances of rape, incest, or harm to the mother.

At the same time I would never judge another person for their choices, but I am not going to say its right either. Nobody is perfect, we all make decisions we regret.

I don't want to get into an abortion debate, I just had to point out that I was annoyed by that statement Pat.
Abortion is not a black and white issue, you can't say you're either 100% for it or 100% against it. There are way too many instances for it to be that way. Yes I think abortion is wrong, but if I was raped I would get an abortion. So where does that put me?
I believe in choices, which means the choice of not putting yourself in the type of situation where you would need an abortion. I do believe in abortion should be a choice only in instances of rape, incest, or harm to the mother. [/b][/quote]Yes, it IS a black and white issue. You're either FOR it or AGAINST it. If you and DJ consider it murder for someone who has consensual sex, then you consider it murder for someone who has an abortion if they were raped. It's not a topic where you can say, well "if that's what happened, then it's ok." You're either ok with abortions 100 % or against them 100 %. How can you call yourself pro-life if you are for abortions for incest and rape? It's the biggest contradiction I've ever seen. -Pat

I highly doubt it's the biggest contradiction you've ever seen. And I already responded. My point was that yes abortion is wrong, however if a woman is raped then it was not her decision to have sex, therefore I do believe she should be allowed to have an abortion if she chooses to do so. What I don't think should be legal is me going out having sex (with or without protection) and then getting an abortion. Unless you are not from this planet then you should know that there is no such thing as 100% protection, therefore having sex is a decision. Rape and incest are not. That is where we differ. It doesnt mean I think abortion is ok.

That is also why I do believe in teaching abstinence in high school. Bush is not being an idiot and saying "Oh if we teach abstinence then they won't have sex," he is teaching students that there is no fool proof method to not getting pregnant if you have sex. That is the basis and reasoning behind teaching Abstinence.

No, it isn't a black & white issue, and not everyone is either FOR or AGAINST it.

Even Bill Clinton, in his 1992 acceptance speech clearly made the distinction between being 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice'. Many people (including me) are pro-choice without necessarily liking the idea of abortion.

I don't think anyone with half a heart is actually FOR abortion; it should be considered exactly what it is. The ending of a life, a tragic but sometimes necessary decision. For some it's an easy decision, some a difficult and painful one. However it's been legal for over 30 years, and anybody who needs one should be able to have one.

It's not black & white...and anybody who claims it is is showing their immaturity.

Again.

Apple

Yes, it is the biggest contradiction I've ever seen and I'm going to stand by my statement: You're either for it 100 % of against it 100 %.

On abstinence--If you have funds to put into health classes, would you promote contraception or abstinence? I would promote contraceptive. Kids won't wait. It's 2004. Sex is like a regular thing. It's not even considered a risk anymore. You know why it's not considered a risk? The youth have few health classes. Fortunately, I have a very good health class, but some schools have none. -Pat

Actually they do work. They have to be run properly...not by the government. By civilians who KNOW and have experienced what happens.

and one other thing......it takes TWO people to make a baby. So if anything it should be the COUPLE'S right to choose.

Many people (including me) are pro-choice without necessarily liking the idea of abortion.
[/b][/quote]Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down. Where did I say I liked the idea of abortion? I just said I supported it and support people making the choice for they want to do. I never said abortion is the best thing around. -Pat

I was gonna start a new thread for this, but it'll only flow in to every other political thread we've had, so thought I'd just post it here.

Do you really think that all these "undecided" voters are truly undecided???? I mean less than two weeks away and from seeing some on tv, even after the last debate, are still not sure. all the news, all the political ads, all the hype about this election???? I can understand that someone might not care for either candidate, but come on!!!! If you plan to vote, you have to make a choice. Just wanted to know everyone's thoughts. Oh, and although I doubt it, is there anyone here who is truly undecided at this point?? If so, can you say what exactly you are waiting to hear from either candidate?


TIS

I gotta disagree with you on this one, Pat.

What in this world is 100% black or white, after all?

I see nothing wrong with people being anti-abortion, except in certain circumstances, like rape, incest, or if giving birth places the mother's life in danger.

What I do find interesting, though, is all of the folks here who are anti-abortion and say that abortion goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church also preaches abstinence out of wedlock, and prohibits the use of contraceptives.

I wonder how many of the good Catholic young men here practice what their church preaches?

Very good point, Plaw. My grandma, who is a registered voter, will not be voting this year because both canidates are for abortion and when I asked her about types of birth control, she also said she was against that. It seems there are very few people on here who are anti-abortion and anti-contraceptives, but if I'm "going against my religion" for favoring abortion, then are the pro-lifers going against their religion if they're for contraceptives? -Pat

Actually, you have stated in several posts that one is either '100% FOR it or 100% AGAINST it'.
You've also implied that you yourself are FOR it and that you SUPPORT it.

My wording of "...pro-choice without necessarily liking the idea of abortion...." didn't necessarily apply to you personally and have a seat Patrick, brace yourself, get somebody to hold your hand you may not be ready for such harsh news but ...

WAKE UP YOU LITTLE SNOT! This thread isn't about and doesn't revolve around ... YOU!

:rolleyes:

Apple

OUCH, I just got home from work and I see politics and religion in the same issue-

Holy Shit, now we are talking some deep shit.
I have to get my raincoat on because I sure don't want to ruin a good suit reading everything that is flying around here.

This is my bottome line:

I admire John Kerry's position of believing in his religion and not inforcing it on everyone. As we well know, America is one of the most broad religious countries out there. I personally do not believe in God or a higher being. I believe in evolution, psychology and science. I believe that our "spirt" is a figment of our consiousness.

But that is not part of this thread and please, let's save that for after the elections. My point is I would not be happy with a president running the most powerful in the world with his idea's of religion. He must understand the USA is a very diverse body. The fact that Kerry can look past his religion and make decisions based on what is better for our country, and not just that religion, is one of the most admirable traits in him. I understand that many people want our country led with Bush's religion at the wheel, but for people like me, I'm into the humanistic aspect of it.

We can't let a religion make our choices for us. We are individuals, we can make them ourselves. The Human Being has come so far and the thought of being a slave to an idealology is unfortunate.

I do think faith is a different thing. Faith transends bounds of religion.

Doctor Ferro

P.S. Again, if you are religious, I respect that more than anything. I ask that we save the religion-life debate for later and focus on the religion-politics view.

That kinda reminded me of that old, old Saturday Night Live Point-Counterpoint routine with Jane Curtin and Dan Ackroyd.

Their debate quickly degenerates into a name-calling match.

I forget what Jane calls Dan, and he responds by calling her a filthy slut or something.

Edit: "Jane, you ignorant slut...."

Part--I have learned more about politics in the past few months then I ever thought I would. It is something that I talk about everyday in my life. There's only a few major things I have changed on, and that's switching my views on abortion and turning into an independent from a democrat. I am sorry if this makes you mad in anyway, but I can't help that my views change on certain issues that I didn't know much about until now. -Pat

The exact phrase was: "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

But not to worry.

Patrick has class; he would never come out with such a comment!

Apple

I have a tape if the 15th anniverasary show, and that bit was on there.

I just looked it up and edited my post just when you posted.

Reminds me of Gilda Radner (as Emily Latella) and Chevy Chase (as the tv newscaster).....

Emily: "Whats all this fuss I hear about presidential erections"?

Chase: "No, no, Miss Latella, thats presidential elections, not erections".

Emily: "Oh, thats different....never mind".

Does anyone remember the episode where Jane Curtian rips her blouse open during their newscast sketch?? I think it was her and Gilda Radner. You guys know which episode that was? I remember laughing a lot during that segment but can't remember any of the dialog.


TIS

Emily was Japanese?

Fast forwarding thru the tape, I saw some great bits, including Belushi's imitation of Don Corleone, Billy Crystal's "Fernando's Hideaway", "Cheesebureger, Cheeseburger", The Whiners, The Bill Murray lounge singer, Bill and Gila as BF and GF and he's giving her noogies, Ackroyd as the refrigerator repairmen who bends over and half of the crack of his ass is showing...

My 2cents here:

- How can devote Catholics vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate, while at the same time say they can't vote for a pro-choice candidate because of their faith? This is very inconsistent.

- To pro-lifers that make exceptions for rape or incent (if Bush wins, appoints justice that overturns Roe v Wade): What happens if a woman claims she was raped and wants to get an abortion? Would the allegation alone permit the abortion? What if the case goes to trial, and the alledged rapist is aquitted. What if the trial takes 9 months before a conviction!? This position is unworkable.

The Catholic Church position of saying abortion is ALWAYS wrong is consistent, as is the pro-choice position.

I am not religious at all. Of course, I have a religioin -- I'm Catholic -- but I, just like anyone else with any sense, question the Bible from time to time. (EX: gay marriage, I'm for it.) I believe in God, I try my best to behave as if he were watching me, but I don't go to church every week and most certainly don't base my opinions on the Bible/Catholic religion.

I'm against abortion because of morals and ethics -- I think it's wrong to end a life. But I, in no way, contrived my views on the religious teachings of the Bible or Jesus Christ.

And I took a personal oath of celibacy a while ago, not because of religion, again, but because of my own personal morals.

Just thought I'd respond to your curiosity and let you know there are people out there who are against abortion for non-religious reasons.

Again, I would rather see people like Osama Bin Laden rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Death is too easy of a solution for them. They should have to serve their time.

Anyways, from a Christian standpoint, yes, the death penalty is also against the Christian teachings, and in my humble opinion, it is not enough of a deterrent to stop people from committing heinous crimes.

The justice system needs to be harsher, and punishment should be more suited to the crime. Another reason why I'm particularly interested to see what happens in the debate about whether 16 & 17 year old felons (specifically, murderers, I believe) should be put to death, which has come up in the news as of late.

My question is this: when has the President made a decision wholly based upon his religion? When has Bush, in his 3+ years in office, based a decision in American politics soley on his Christian faith?

He hasn't.

He uses his faith to help him make judgements, but he certainly hasn't led the "catholic" president that people are now making him out to be, or that they poked fun at Kennedy before he was elected.

GWB uses his faith as a guide. Like he said in the debate, his faith is a part of him.

I don't see how someone with strong faith, regardless of your feelings on religion, is a negative. He has conviction and beliefs; where is the crime in that?

If people we're really concerned he was going to be some religious zealot, he wouldn't be on the ballot. I mean, how many muslims will we see on the ballot, ever in our lifetimes? Lieberman is the closest, and as long as were at it, I'm surprised nobody brought up the fact that he is a Jew.

Anyways, my point is this. I don't think that President Bush, because he believes in God, uses his religion to wholly dictate his Presidential decisions. Does he use it to find strength? Sure. Does he go to the Bible, and find wisdom it it's words? Most likely.

But clearly, with the war on terror, he usage of the embryonic stem cells (the leftovers from the Clinton admin, which Bush had no control over), etc. exemplifies how despite Bush's faith, he is not bound with regards to representing an equal America for all people.

---

That being said, I don't understand why it seems as though the very small minority thinks it should be allowed to push a majority around.

I'm referring to the attempts by an atheist to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegience.

Now, back a few years ago in high school (and even middle school), they made it perfectly clear that while you didn't have to say the pledge, you at least had to be respectful and keep silent.

Nothing wrong with that.

But why, upon a country that is built upon the foundations that there are "certain unalienable rights, bestowed by a divine creator" must the words "under God" be stricken? Does it specifically pertain to one "god?" No. It doesn't say it's Jehovah, or Christ, or Allah. It is not a symbol of religion inasmuch as that it is a symbol that people felt a connection to some form of higher power the governed the world as we know it.

We don't really know that for sure, though, do we?

I'm not saying he has, but I don't think you can state with certainty that he hasn't.


Lieberman is the closest to what? Being a Muslim, or being a religious zealot?

I certainly don't think you can compare his religious zeal to Bush's.

One of the main things that concerns me about Bush is his statement that he's doing "God's work"

And BTW, Lieberman's practice of Orthodox Jewry gave me great pause in thinking about whether or not I wanted to vote for Gore. And I'm Jewish, altho I don't practice the religion or believe in God.

Like a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage?

I do, TIS !!!

I also remember Jane saying woefully, straight into the camera after the HUGE laugh has subsided....

"I'm sorry mom, it's my job!"

Years later in an interview Curtain mentioned the apology truly was to her mother who was watching; she felt very uncomfortable ripping open the blouse but it was written into the sketch and she had to do it.

I just love 'behind-the-scenes' stories, don't you...???



Apple

Like a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage? [/b][/quote]Being against gay marriage is not necessarily a religious decision, though I'm sure it plays a part in Bush's thinking.

What about abortion and embryonic stem cells? Clearly that isn't expressing the rights for the unborn...

You misunderstand.....

I'm not saying his anti-gay marriage stance stems from his religious convictions, although it may.

I'm questioning your statement that "he represents an equal America for all people"

What I don't understand is why do people feel the President is a "strong" leader?

Another is the constant remarks from known GOP faithful that the President is "carrying on the mantle of Reagan"...

First off, Reagan was charismatic and was a pro in campaigner and debating. UNLIKE you know who.

Second, yes Europeans didn't approve of many American actions in the 1980's(like the air strike against Libya for example) but while I'm not for such things as a "Global Test", did Reagan totally alienate traditional allies? Hell, he even ordered an invasion of a member nation(Grenada, in case you primitive screwheads didn't know ) state of the British Commonwealth, and the US/UK relationship isn't strain to the point like between US and France.

Fact is, I felt Reagan was a GOOD President, but this stooge in the White House trying to use his name as a facade to the faithful that he is something that he "aint"....thus why me, an actual traditional Republican party man, will vote for Kerry.

P.S. - As for Iraq...is it me or is the non-ability to "finish the job" involving Iraq a family trait with the Bush clan?

P.S.S. - I think Kerry is a piss-poor counter-choice to the Dubya. Me, I rather wish Wesley Clark or even Edwards(if only because his face doesn't scare little children and puppies to death like the Vietnam War hero, and basically is the non-chipmunk fat version of Clinton) but I hate to use this term since I think its idiotic in nature, but...."Lesser of the Evils".

I consider myself and Independent because I don't support the Democratic party 100 %. I definetly like the Democrats more, but I don't agree with them on some certain things, such as welfare benefits for legal immigrants. It has nothing to do with not liking Republicans or Democrats. If one is a registered Democrat or Republican, then one is pretty much looked at to vote for that party. -Pat