CFR / NAU & 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES


"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." -Carroll Quigley, member of CFR, mentor to Bill Clinton


"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relation is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." "...the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy..." "...and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition." -Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

Who is a CFR / NAU member?

Which Presidential Candidates are for One-World Government?


Republican Fred Thompson

Republican Rudy Giuliani

Republican Mitt Romney

Republican John McCain

Republican Jim Gilmore

Republican Newt Gingrich

Democrat Hilary Clinton

Democrat Barack Obama

Democrat John Edwards

Democrat Joe Biden

Democrat Chris Dodd

Democrat Bill Richardson


Is there any difference between Republican and Democrat when they have the same goal?


Go to www.cfr.org (Council of Foreign Relations Website). Do a search for: Sovereignty and Globalisation. Take a look at CFR President Richard N. Haass' article "Sovereignty and Globalisation. Check the membership and involvement of all the candidates. See For Yourself!


So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations are a threat to our independence as a nation.

We MUST withdraw from any organization and trade deal that infringes upon the Freedom and Independence of the United States of America!


It's not politics as usual. Research and Vote Wisely. Too Much Is At Stake....

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-------------------

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16

Eternal life and eternal death lay before us and a choice each of us will make...our Creator says "choose life."

From this article We get a picture of the goals of the Catholic Church worldwide, and why they are insistent in the U.S. about harboring illegal aliens and promoting the breaking of our nation's immigration laws. The facts are that most of these illegal aliens come from predominantly Catholic countries. If our elected officials and the Catholic church get their way regarding amnesty for millions of illegal aliens (even if they have to sneak them in in the back of Mexican trucks on the NAFTA Superhighway), that have invaded our country with the aiding and abetting of both our government and the Catholic church, the church plans on using the Catholic vote to do the same in our country as what they have proposed for the European nations and that is to have the state enforce their dogma. And the government will get the cheap labor force they want for commerce and globalizaiton...World Government & World Church...it's taking shape. History is trying to repeat itself and the church wants all the power and control over mankind she once had.

Notice what Pope Benedict XVI states: "Your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday." Picture of things to come? Prophecy states it will and then the end will come.

The battle is over who we will worship by whom we choose to believe and obey as we see in the last warning message to mankind in Revelation 14:6-12. Will we as God's created beings choose to worship the One and Only True Creator God in His Truth or a False System in it's lies created by a being that fell from his station in heaven because he wanted to be worshipped as God...we are free to choose, one is life, the other death. After everyone has made their choice as to who will receive their worship by who they choose to obey...probation will end, the plagues will fall, and Christ will return. Still doubt it? Read the article again, it's happening just the way our God and Creator revealed to us it would happen, it is impossible for Him to lie. He cares, that's why He stayed involved, that's why He revealed the future to us so that when these things begin to transpire as He said they would you would believe and would accept His plan of salvation and prepare yourself. Believe God, your sin debt is paid, make better choices and follow the instruction for better living He has revealed to us...it is peace and joy and health, pray for the power of the Holy Spirit to be in you (we must ask, that gives permission because God and His power will not come in to you if you do not invite), and forgive...forgive others, this is a command from God, it you want Him to forgive you, you must forgive (they are only people too); forgive anything you have against God (He knows ALL things and all things will be revealed later) and forgive yourselves for whatever. Be clean, because He has made us clean from sin and guilt. And DON'T be fooled....Walk with God in His way...no other way will be recognized by Him. "BUT IN VAIN (futile, to no purpose or to no benefit) DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN." (Matthew 15:9)

"Not to confuse Al-Q with the Taliban, but it is difficult to see the clear difference between the Taliban and the hard-right Evangelical embrace of politics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to cover their women, the hard-right Evangelical in no way accepts a woman's right to choose or lead a life equal to that of a man. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to have public stonings, the hard-right Evangelical does not denounce (or partakes in) bombings of abortion clinics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy (largely Islam) is that women are filthy and cannot be touched or spoken to during menstruation, the hard-right Evangelical completely disallows for, without any sense or allowance of critical thought, the "theory" of evolution. Isn't this rather archaic? If the US allows a philosophy which can arguably be compared with the 11th century minded Taliban, that is exactly where the US will end up...or at least a devastating rewind."

Brad,

are you really unable to tell the difference?

The Taliban enforced Sharia as the law of the land - Evangelicals have made no attempt to overthrow the government, restrict the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion, and work through the same democratic legislative processes as you do. The Taliban established their own religious courts - Evangelicals use the same court system you do (we disagree on who the best judges might be, but so do environmentalists and businessmen).

The Taliban held public stonings - while in fact, no responsible religious leader in this country has supported bombing abortion clinics. You cannot find a single organized church or denomination that has, as part of it's creed, policy or teaching, support for blowing up medical clinics.

The Taliban disallowed the education, employment, or any public role for women. And you're upset because some very conservative Christians don't accept the theory of evolution? Most Christians, even conservative ones, do in fact believe in at least some role for evolutionary processes in the creation of the world. No church has introduced legislation to repeal your right to free speach, prohibiting you from saying anything you want about evolution.

You want to know what the difference is? Bottom line:

1) Conservative Christians disagree with you and vote differently than you do;

2) The Taliban want to convert you at gunpoint or, if that doesn't work, kill you.

Doesn't strike me as such a difficult distinction to make.

Gee wizz!

I see an awful lot of straw-man stuff going on here. I am a conservative evangelical Christian, I like what Thompson said, and I never knew that therefore I am automatically also a theocracy promoting homophic woman hater, bent on torturing innocent Arabs.

Seriously guys, calm down.

I've been an evangelical for 30 years and have moved widely in evangelical circles. Your impressions of evangelicals must be drawn from a group I am not familiar with. It certainly isn't the mainstream evangelicalism that I am familiar with.

Wow. If I thought what you think about evangelicals, I would hate them too. I just haven't met any (or very, very few) who match your stereotype.

Does "Believer" sound like a theocracy promoting homophobe? Would he want to stone his daughter if she slept with her boyfriend? Does he sound irrational and unreasonable? Would he reject the scientific method?

He doesn't sound that way to me.

As adults we need to lay our emotions aside when making important decisions. It is easy and emotionally fullfilling to accuse and vent, but doing that often says more about ourselves than it does about our target.

How about some civility and mutual respect?

Our biggest challenge as humans is to accurately comprehend and properly respond to reality.

You guys should do some research on what most evangelicals believe. I think that you would find that reality doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

"Demos: The god of the Old Testament is a jealous god. Jealous enough to kill those who reject him. And christianity says the Old Testament is still valid, at least as I understand it. And regardless of what the New Testament say, look at the actions of christians. As soon as they took over the Roman Empire, they banned all other religions. Made practicing them a capital offense. Judaism and Islam are the same. Regardless of what contradictory messages are in their scriptures, in practice they are highly exclusivist religions. It is this exclusivity that enables their followers to kill others with a clear conscience. They are against god, they will go to hell anyways, so let's just hurry things a bit."

Garak, there may be some things in the Old Testament that you're not familiar with. Yes, for most of the period covered by the Hebrew scriptures the tribes of Israel were governed theocratically. But they were almost unique at the time in understanding God to be universal - not just the divine sponsor of their one nation (not that it was an easy lesson for them to learn - read the book of Jonah, which is among other thing an extended lesson against xenophobia; if you want another surprise, look at the book of Job again - a careful reading will show that Job wasn't Jewish).

You also seem to misunderstand how the Old Testament relates to Christianity. It provides the background for the New Testament, and we believe that there's much we can learn from it about God's nature and purposes, but we believe that the work of Christ has superceded the Mosaic law found in the Old Testament - if we didn't, then we'd still be keeping it, and Christianity would just be another form of Judaism (e.g., Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Jesus Judaism).

Religion doesn't make men kill, though it has (and is) often used as an excuse for killing. Stalin and Pol Pot were perfectly capable of mass murder without any religious sanction. Let's face it - there is something within human nature that is simply murderous. This is a stain on every cause that has been infected by it. But don't be too hasty to tar religion with this as a way to raise the standard of secularism - if we were to look back at the 20th century and count the deaths attributable to Christianity and Judaism, and weigh them against those attributable to essentially atheistic totalitarian political philosphies, secularism wouldn't look so good.

Andy, you said "Anyone who talks about of how their version of God should somehow trump or dominate in the market place is not necessarily interested in Decomcracy but using democratic means for one ideology to dominate."

Who, specifically, in this blog discussion or on the 2008 presidential campaign trail, has said that "their version of God should somehow trump or dominate in the market place?" I certainly havn't. I don't believe anyone else has, either. Thompson couldn't have - he's been so coy about entering the campaing that he hasn't said all that much about anything yet.

Andy, we'd all be better of if we could just cool down and listen to each other. I know you're honestly concerned - but statements like this are what lead so many churchgoers to believe that they and their faith are under attack. I'm sure you don't want to restrict my right to worship, and to argue forcefully for what I believe. I'm also sure that you don't want to prohibit my saying anything I want about the direction I think the country should be headed in, or who I think we should vote for - and to openly talk about how I came to those conclusions, whether that be through my economic philosphy, personal self-interest, or my religious faith. (If I'm wrong, tell me - because then we'll really have something to debate.)

In turn, I have absolutely no desire to create a theocracy. I have no desire to prohibit you from arguing against anything I believe - be it political, scientific, moral or theological. (To be fair, when we debate I would like to win - but face it, so would you.) No one is trying to take a way the right to free speach, free association, or the right to free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion.

So why the heat? This is exactly the way democracy (small d) is supposed to work.

“We still get our basic rights from God, not government”—this is a phrase that Fred Thompson has been pronouncing a lot lately.

We the people - - Hmmmmm. Hell with the laws of the land. Let God give us direction.

Just another pandering politician playing to the radical right wing fanatics. Fred - does God tell you to dump your wife for a trophy wife.

What an imbecile. Is this the best the rep conservatives come up with.

Thank you for this article. It ensures that I will not ever ever cast a vote for Thompson, should the Democrats nominate Satan himself, I will vow to work ceaselessly for their election. I am so fed up with pompous gaseous male egomaniacs who think religion is their ticket to power. Americans got what they deserved the last time they voted that way, and thank the deities above, Americans are sick and tired of these moronic diatribes by people who should run for pope, not president.

I'm notifying all the Democratic campaigns of this remark (not that they may need it) so that they can play this endlessly during the election to their benefit.

By the way, I am as libertarian as they come, and I am outraged and incensed by these remarks. Religion has NO place in politics. None. Zippo.

Not to confuse Al-Q with the Taliban, but it is difficult to see the clear difference between the Taliban and the hard-right Evangelical embrace of politics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to cover their women, the hard-right Evangelical in no way accepts a woman's right to choose or lead a life equal to that of a man. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to have public stonings, the hard-right Evangelical does not denounce (or partakes in) bombings of abortion clinics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy (largely Islam) is that women are filthy and cannot be touched or spoken to during menstruation, the hard-right Evangelical completely disallows for, without any sense or allowance of critical thought, the "theory" of evolution. Isn't this rather archaic? If the US allows a philosophy which can arguably be compared with the 11th century minded Taliban, that is exactly where the US will end up...or at least a devastating rewind.

Not to confuse Al-Q with the Taliban, but it is difficult to see the clear difference between the Taliban and the hard-right Evangelical embrace of politics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to cover their women, the hard-right Evangelical in no way accepts a woman's right to choose or lead a life equal to that of a man. The Taliban's conservative philosophy is to have public stonings, the hard-right Evangelical does not denounce (or partakes in) bombings of abortion clinics. The Taliban's conservative philosophy (largely Islam) is that women are filthy and cannot be touched or spoken to during menstruation, the hard-right Evangelical completely disallows for, without any sense or allowance of critical thought, the "theory" of evolution. Isn't this rather archaic? If the US allows a philosophy which can arguably be compared with the 11th century minded Taliban, that is exactly where the US will end up...or at least a devastating rewind.

We must beware of unmedicated schizophrenics given to delusional religiosity which the power-kissing media presents to us as mere "politicians of faith":

"God told me to end tyranny in Iraq."

-- George W. Bush, to the Palestinian Foreign Minister, 2004.

Sunana Batra said:

"Fred Thompson's faith in God can only be speculated upon, but what one can judge from his other comments is that in fact he IS a God fearing man."

Why do fundies all seem to think the most advanced, enlightened being in the universe is an unpredictable, violent, abusive alcoholic?

The Constitution and the people who fought for it gave me my rights. This Imaginary Friend in the Sky that the primitive tribespeople here in the US believe in, sat around for an awfully long time doing nothing, if she/he actually exists.

Much of the Religious Right in America is allied with the power and plans of the Roman Catholic Church...which America's Founder determined, in his letter to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810, to be "the real Anti-Christ." The transparent treason of 9-11 and subsequent false war of the homosexual draft-dodger appointed by the Roman Catholic bloc of the Supreme Court, in the patently unconstitutional "Bush v. Gore," proves Mr. Jefferson yet a Prophet of the One Creator G_d: a stranger to the visible apostate "church."

Novus Ordo Seclorem: The New SECULAR Order
Annuit Coeptis: Divine Providence Blesses Our Endeavors
E Pluribus Unum: Of Many, One

To make a correction, I meant to write

What's God's will to one is blasphemy to the next.

Let me say that despite being a soft agnostic (ie I believe in some sort or sorts of otherworldly deistic being(s) but dont subscribe to any one faith) have nothing against christianity or any established religions.

I think the commandments barring adultery, lying, murder, coveting, and honour of your parents are all around strong laws and morals that can be applicable to any society secular or otherwise.
I believe in the Muslims' Zakah (alms giving) and Amr-Bir-Marud (enjoining to do good)
All of the Buddhists eight fold path are ones that all people should try to follow.

However, I am very wary of just throwing in religion into the already muddled secular tradition of government. Unfortunetly, there is no one way to interpret what is written in the bible or any scriptures, thus we have so many denomonations and divisions, right?

The invoking of (an overtly) religious mindset can complicate matters.

Divisions and discourse can become more heated. By focusing on deeply divisible issues, we can lose sight on issuses that are easily remidable with cooperation and trust.

What is more scary is people (well intentioned or not) using God's law/will/whathaveyou to justify anything they so please. And if certain laws are in place, older laws that would ban certain practices (xenophobia, discrimination, violence) will become irrelevant, or at worse sacreligious blasphemy.

To resort to that, smacks of the idea of divine rule of monarchs from times past, which the west has worked to eradicate and create a more fair and balanced system. What's God's will/teachings is blasphemy and a crime to the next. And to unilaterly act on such motives with potentially disregarding discourse and tolerance could set us back many a century in terms of liberty, justice and peace for all people.

Not all but a considerable amount of Americans are unaware of the differences between us and people around the world. Not the least of which on matters of considerable complexities, such as history, culture and foriegn faiths/beliefs.
If we rely too much on certain bible passages as justification of our own misguidance/greed/fear/etc. many unfavorable variables will arise. Particularly in this sticky Muslim Extremist Battle.

My summation, I cannot deny that this is a country of proffesed god-fearing/believeing men and women, but I fear the justification of war,discriimination and instablity in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and his father in heaven.

Let's keep our heads together and avert that

For those who believe: May God(s) bless America and the World

For others: May Fortune and Luck shine on both

For all: Peace

I continue to protest against calling Evanglicals "conservative" Christians, seeing that they are at the opposite extreme of Greek Orthodox Christians, who retain the original paradigm. If they are called "politically"
conservative, that might pass--despite big government, huge deficits, etc. But religiously conservative their paradigm is not. The Apostle Paul's 26 uses of energy terms (and many derived terms) are unknown to them, so far as I can tell, even though Aristotle's view of reality in terms of energy was as fashionable in Paul's day as certain religious slogans were in the sixties in
this country. Much more could be said, but that is the nitty-gritty.

Thompson is a politician. He wants to be nominated and elected to the Presidency, and he can sling bull with the best of them. His comments are a political dodge. To cite Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In this context, I state as an observant Jew that if it was good enough for the Founders, it's good enough for me. Only a zealot conflates religion with politics and government. My stomach curdles every time I consider the domestic and foreign policy decline of our great country since Shrub, a zealot who surrounds himself with zealots, assumed office.

Our basic rights do come from God, but here on earth,it seems that only good government has the ability to guarentee those rigths.

Anyone who talks about of how their version of God should somehow trump or dominate in the market place is not necessarily interested in Decomcracy but using democratic means for one ideology to dominate. History has shown what has happened when these kind of control freaks were in charge both in militantly atheistic countries and militantly religious countries. The balance can easily tip if any kind of extreme zealtory is not held in check. So it is in your best interest to make sure Democracy is not diluted with religiosity of any kind.

Great. Now somebody please tell me whose God and what rights come from that God that everyone is subject to? And who is the final authority that supposedly speaks for God to enforce whatever rights that God has supposdely given to everyone? I am sure the Creator has given human beings many rights but is that same Creator forcing anyone to believe any one way or has that Creator appoitned anyone to force anyone to believe or act in any certain way?

The Bible if I am not mistaken talks more about responsibilities than rights and I have yet to see any conservative model of responsible behavior so that Democracy (man-made institution) can survive.

Beware anyone who has flag in one hand and faith in the other or anyone who tries to enforce faith with a flag or flag with faith. It never worked and will never work if individual freedoms are what matters. Theocracy or Democracy? You can't have it both ways.

Those of us who consider extremist christians to be both a national and a personal danger, rest assured that any such attempts to turn this government into a brainless theocracy will be resisted as violently as the attempt is to impose it.

In terms of "outstanding citizens" concerning human social issues, it's to laugh that right-wing christian give a damn. As they say, these folks "love 'em until they're born." Other than that, their main concern seems to be starting wars and saluting the flag in sickening displays of brainwashed jingoism, like the right's continuing support of our Worst. President. Ever., George Bush. Their opposition to social spending but support of massive military spending puts this group near the fascist end of the political spectrum, along with their buddies like Cheney.

We're not going back to medieval times. The reign of the religious terrorist in American politics is coming to an end.

Sunana Batra writes
Fred Thompson's faith in God can only be speculated upon, but what one can judge from his other comments is that in fact he IS a God fearing man. In my bible it says the first sign of wisdom is fear of God. I know Sunana Batra is of the Hindu religion. In the Christian religion God considers it a sin if we don't put all our faith and trust in him. Republicans have put their trust in bombs and bullets (THE DEVIL) because of their fear of dying. They try to make themselves seem human when they talk about it being wrong that women are killing unborn babies. To me the definition of something that is "unborn" is dead. God/Jesus never spoke about abortion. He did speak loud and clear about not judging anyone. The Republicans seem to forget the most important aspects of what Jesus said but they are the first to spout their unholy diatribes. What they have done is cause the most unbearable situation in Iraq and have opened the door for Iran to walk in. Everybody wanted Saddam Hussein out, what the Republicans have forgotten is Ronald Reagan, George Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neocons gave Saddam WPD's. They said nothing when he used them on the Kurds, and the Iranians. I am amazed that they have the guts to talk about the sanctity of life. We will all be judged one day of the things we have done, and the things we have not done. It seems that day is getting closer each day.

I think Sunana Batra is wrong when he says "most people of faith have traditional values" I think most people have their own beliefs about what is traditional. What kind of person believes it's wrong to kill something unborn but it's okay to torture another human being? Does his God think that is okay? I believe my God is saddened when he sees that! Why does Sunana Batra think we initiated something called the Geneva Convention? He should read it, I know John McCain has!

Sunana Batra writes
Fred Thompson's faith in God can only be speculated upon, but what one can judge from his other comments is that in fact he IS a God fearing man. In my bible it says the first sign of wisdom is fear of God. I know Sunana Batra is of the Hindu religion. In the Christian religion God considers it a sin if we don't put all our faith and trust in him. Republicans have put their trust in bombs and bullets (THE DEVIL) because of their fear of dying. They try to make themselves seem human when they talk about it being wrong that women are killing unborn babies. To me the definition of something that is "unborn" is dead. God/Jesus never spoke about abortion. He did speak loud and clear about not judging anyone. The Republicans seem to forget the most important aspects of what Jesus said but they are the first to spout their unholy diatribes. What they have done is cause the most unbearable situation in Iraq and have opened the door for Iran to walk in. Everybody wanted Saddam Hussein out, what the Republicans have forgotten is Ronald Reagan, George Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neocons gave Saddam WPD's. They said nothing when he used them on the Kurds, and the Iranians. I am amazed that they have the guts to talk about the sanctity of life. We will all be judged one day of the things we have done, and the things we have not done. It seems that day is getting closer each day.

I think Sunana Batra is wrong when he says "most people of faith have traditional values" I think most people have their own beliefs about what is traditional. What kind of person believes it's wrong to kill something unborn but it's okay to torture another human being? Does his God think that is okay? I believe my God is saddened when he sees that! Why does Sunana Batra think we initiated something called the Geneva Convention? He should read it, I know John McCain has!

Actually, I find it hilarious that a "sophisticated" newspaper like the Washington Post is publishing this garbage just because the Publisher's wife is a religious loony.

Of course nonbelievers must take religion seriously. Those are the people who kill us because Their Cause is Just!

"The one cnadidate that can bring religous America and secular America together. Watch the most important speech on religon and politics in 40 years."

Yawn.

Obama can bring religious liberals back together with secular liberals; that is all.

There's not one policy position Obama actively backs which is not supported by the left wing of the party, no matter how much they gnash their teeth at his religious references.

The one cnadidate that can bring religous America and secular America together. Watch the most important speech on religon and politics in 40 years.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

First amendment to the American Constitution must be read in to-days situation and those high thoughts ofbe read.To create politics using GOD is only 3rd world tool.

Yeah, it was precisely these religious nuts who twice voted for Bush and directly brought on the decline of America.

Don't believe it? Just read today's headlines.

Then you can scroll back and learn about the disastrous last six years that the wackos have made possible.

The fact of the matter is - they're really not Americans. They long for the dictatorship that Bush is working overtime to deliver.

They need to get out of politics and back into the church pews - lest they end up meeting Jerry Falwell in Hell.

Yeah, it was precisely these religious nuts who twice voted for Bush and directly brought on the decline of America.

Don't believe it? Just read today's headlines.

Then you can scroll back and learn about the disastrous last six years that the wackos have made possible.

The fact of the matter is - they're really not Americans. They long for the dictatorship that Bush is working overtime to deliver.

They need to get out of politics and back into the church pews - lest they end up meeting Jerry Falwell in Hell.

"Having lived in France--one of the most socialist countries you can find--for many years, I can tell you that the family is much stronger there than here. ...They may "marry" less frequently than we do, but common law marriages are abundant and are seen as just as valid as religious ones."

But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

If it were uncompassionate capitalism at fault, why is that the more government programs were launched, the higher illegitimacy and single-parent households climbed? Is it seriously your contention that American capitalism is harsher now than in the days of Rockefeller and the Trusts?

Religion is a personal matter and has no place in government in a secular nation like the US. If you want to believe the world is flat and base all your actions on this belief, go ahead but don't impose such a foolish notion on the rest of us. The greatest danger we face as a secular society is having religious views imposed upon us regardless of the source, Islam or Christianity.

An Anonymous writer coined the term "religi-phobia" earlier in this blog. Does he refer to the millions of people persecuted, raped and murdered by religious zealots throughout history, culminating with this present group of iconoclasts? I damn certainly am terrified of these thugs. They operate well outside the rrealm of rational thought.

So, Jack...
What else is new? Or news to the USA citizenry?
Fred and Jeri are out to win... Get it?

Recent books by Dawkins and Hitchens have emphasized the dangers that religion can provoke. In fact, prisons are now ridding their libraries of faith-inspired tracts that might spur extremists of any faith to become fanatics.

My own beliefs, at this time, are inspired by Spinoza, who, in turn, was a tremendous influence upon Einstein. The God (or Goddess) of Science may one day lead civilization out of the present chaotic darkness into the light. Hope, at this time, is a candle dimmed - but not yet extinguished.

MULOPWEPAUL:

To suggest that the strong structures of the family have dissolved because of socialism is absurd.

Having lived in France--one of the most socialist countries you can find--for many years, I can tell you that the family is much stronger there than here. They may "marry" less frequently than we do, but common law marriages are abundant and are seen as just as valid as religious ones.

I would argue that the family structure has weakened in this country because of
the rather brutal and ubcompassionate
form of capitalism we have here. This capitalism makes people care only about their own survival--at the expense of the family.

Demos: The god of the Old Testament is a jealous god. Jealous enough to kill those who reject him. And christianity says the Old Testament is still valid, at least as I understand it. And regardless of what the New Testament say, look at the actions of christians. As soon as they took over the Roman Empire, they banned all other religions. Made practicing them a capital offense. Judaism and Islam are the same. Regardless of what contradictory messages are in their scriptures, in practice they are highly exclusivist religions. It is this exclusivity that enables their followers to kill others with a clear conscience. They are against god, they will go to hell anyways, so let's just hurry things a bit.

Believer: But you assume that we can only get rights from a social compact or from god. I say we have rights as sentient human beings, not because of some god. We enter into a social compact to create a society in which we can live. That compact may have to address certain rights, as our Constitution does. If we were to decide that god does not like free speech, would we repeal the First Amendment? If we were to do so in constitutionally correct manner, would that right cease to exist? Remember that before 1789, most, if not all, the colonies made blasphemy a crime. All 3 judeo-christian-ilamic religions follow this. Were we to accept this god as the source of our rights, blasphemy would still be a crime. I think Scalia believes this, but I doubt the Supreme Court would agree.

Our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I have yet to have Jesus keep me from being mugged, or catching a disease. But my government does the best it can to help me in either instance.

Why should I expect my rights to be provided/protected by an entity whose existence cannot be proven? I don't see those rights being protected in Darfur, or Iraq, or Russia, much less on our streets by God.

Only in America, and only by our GOVERNMENT.

ICONRAD,

your passion is admirable, but who are you really fighting. I have no desire to restrict religious liberty in this country. Have any of my comments suggested otherwise? I don't believe anyone else in this discussion who has argued that basic human rights ultimate derive their moral authority from God has suggested curtailing the right to free exercise of religion (though several who don't take this view have argued that rights are not universal, and we only have those rights that are granted by our legal system). I'm pretty sure that neither Mr. Thompson, nor any other serious presidential candidate, has suggested undoing the Bill of Rights.

What is it that you feel threatened by? The idea that someone would feel that our rights are not just backed up by the Constitution, but that God demands we honor them as well? Do you honestly believe that's going to make someone LESS likely to protect them?

It seems to me that you're coming dangerously close to censoring the political debate yourself. If you don't agree with Mr. Thompson's views, handle it the same way you'd handle a disagreement over free trade versus protectionism - join the debate on the merits, and win. It's unfair and cowardly to simply insist "we shouldn't even let people talk about ideas like that in this country."

Speaking as a libertarian ("Big L" to be precise), I can tell you that I have yet to meet a libertarian whom is fooled by this sort of thing. Conservative Evangelicals are the //enemy// of libertarianism, not an ally. Besides -- Ron Paul already has the GOP's "libertarian" vote securely attached to himself. At this point -- if you're bringing god into the political arena, then you're not promoting freedom. The "Religious Right" has made this the case by forcing the issue.

“We still get our basic rights from Allah, not government”

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Truthsayer,"

I've got to ask - what's up with your posts? Does your shift key randomly lock up on you? (Or do you just enjoy metaphorically yelling at people?)

VKLIP,

You say that, "No, in fact, there are no "universal" rights."

Thank you for speaking so clearly on this issue. I do strongly disagree with you.

This seems to me a far too purely utilitarian position. If one could prove (or were a particular country to believe) that a society that dealt with bankruptcy by selling debtors into slavery, and that suppressed free speach and religion would be more econonomically and politically successful, and such an approach were adopted through legal means, then it would leave us with no basis for objecting. It would also leave dissenting citizens of that society, including those falling into slavery, with no moral argument against it - their only recourse would be personal preference, or arguments than another approach might be more effective.

You're afraid of a theocracy - I'm equally afraid of secular totalitarianism. The Taliban was murderous and oppressive - so was Stalin. Neither secularism nor atheism are any guarantee of freedom.

To be clear, I have no desire for a theocracy - have you ever heard me suggest otherwise? I strongly suspect that Mr. Thompson has no desire for a theocracy either. If anything, I would ground the right to free speach and freedom of religion in something even more fundamental than the Bill of Rights - as would the writers of the Declaration of Independence. I am convinced that those rights are the inalienable birthright of all men and women.

A firm conviction that there are universal human rights that are grounded in our common human nature, as created by God, in no way implies that we should seek, as you put it, "to enforce or attempt to enforce any particular religious perspective." Is there anything that I have said, or Mr. Thompson has said, that suggests to you otherwise?

Given that we share a belief in God, I would ask this? If we are all created by God, doesn't that at least on a moral level imply that we share equal moral dignity? Again, morally, don't we share an equal moral responsibility to choose how we will live? And more directly, don't we all have an equal right to seek God? It seems to me that if you are convinced that God, as described in the New Testament, created people and wants them to seek and serve them, it's impossible to argue that we don't all have a least a moral right to free exercise of religion (even though it may be honored more in the breach than in the observance).

One thing that must be said about this religious right, that seems not to be understood by them, is that Jesus NEVER got involved with politics. He stayed away from it because that's not the way Christianity was to be. Matthew 22:21 "They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to GOD the things that are GOD’s.”" See, Jesus did not go campaigning to the local government to implement His beliefs. It was an individual decision to be made by each person, and spread by His disciples, not the governor or king or any political structure. Acts 16:17 "This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.”"

What the religious right does not understand is that God is "GOD", He does not need there little electorate to influence the course of saving this planet. Everytime you read the Bible, it states that GOD is the one who does the saving, and giving SALVATION to this world, not the SINFUL MAN.Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other (that being Jesus), for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”"

When reading the Bible you see nothing about MAN fighting some religious battle to HELP GOD achieve SALVATION for this world. I mean think about it; Why would God/Jesus let Himself DIE so that 2000 years later, so called CHRISTIANS can FORCE people to be saved. Jesus's way was not to use the force of GOVERNMENT, but it was a choice presented to everyone, but not by force. So much so, that Jesus SURRENDERED His life for us.

Just like the people of Jesus day were FOOLED to think that JESUS would use FORCE and establish a government to rule on earth, these religious right people are being fooled too. Peter and the disciples wanted Jesus to setup rulership on this earth, the religious right want the same.
Matt 16: "22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You! (note: Peter just told Jesus that He would not die.)” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

When Jesus spoke to His followers He instructed them not to use force, so much so that they could possibly lose their life. Jesus's way was passive, not one of FORCE, using the government.

Believer says: "Rights must be protected by law, but those core rights that we consider universal are not universal because of a universal law or constitution - if they are truly universal (as I believe they are), then it must be for some other reason.
What's your understanding? Are those rights not universal? If I live in, say North Korea, can I not legitimately complain that I have a right to free speach that's being violated by my government? Or, if I live in Saudi Arabia, can I not legitimately complain that I have a right to the free exercise of religioun that's being violated?"

No, in fact, there are no "universal" rights. You do not have a right to free speech in North Korea, nor a right to free exercise of religion in Saudi Arabia. Laws are made by governments, and it is laws that control "rights". I agree with the poster who pointed out that at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, the "divine right of kings" was what gave King George his power; it is very likely that the writers were trying to offset the king's divine right with creator granted rights to all people. I wasn't there and don't know. There are, however, sufficient writings to strongly show that the founders, among them Jefferson, believed very strongly that government should not control religion and religion should not form the basis for government.
When you ask about the lack of "right" of free exercise of religion in Saudi Arabia, you are referring to a system of government in which laws, by and large, are controlled by a majority religious system. That is exactly the kind of danger the founders foresaw when they set in place the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I don't want religion making laws, because I believe religion-based law-making to be very dangerous. History has documented this over and over, including not only the Spanish Inquisition, but also the witch prosecutions and hangings in New England, the persecution of Quakers in many parts of colonial America, and the many local laws affecting not only Roman Catholics and Jews in particular, but all persons who were not "Protestant Christian" in general.
As a person who holds my faith very dearly, and who does believe in God, based on many years of Bible study and church going, I do NOT want the laws that govern me to proceed from one particular religious viewpoint or perspect. I want the laws that govern me to be respectful of all personal beliefs about religion (including non-belief) but NOT to enforce or attempt to enforce any particular religious perspective.

As to Chris Newell's comment:

"Have you ever heard an Evangelical refer to Exodus 21:22? This clearly states whilst causing the death of a pregnant woman is murder, the loss of an unborn child is a purely a civil matter for which compensation should be paid to the woman's husband. This completely undermines their arguments about abortion so they ignore it."

Please read the verse again, for it looks like you missed some sentences. The verse is quoted below.
Ex 21:22,23 "22 “Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. 23 BUT if there is further injury, the PUNISHMENT must MATCH the injury: a LIFE for a LIFE"

As you see, if the child is aborted/murdered, than this law requires the LIFE of the MURDERER, not a compensation, which totally refutes your post stating it's a civil matter. For