Republican Candidates Faceoff at IFPC Forum
- Monday, September 14, 2009, 4:00
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 3,168 views
- 184 comments
This past Saturday, the Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) held a gubernatorial forum following the Iowa/Iowa State football game. The event was held at the State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. IFPC invited Governor Chet Culver, the six announced Republican gubernatorial candidates, and former Governor Terry Branstad, who is rumored to be interested in running.
The forum, which was also a barbeque, allowed each of the four candidates in attendance to address to the crowd of over 300 people about issues that they feel are important to the family. Each candidate was given fifteen minutes to speak, and at the conclusion of the speeches, those in attendance were asked to cast their vote in a candidate straw poll.
All of the four candidates who attended the event, Bob Vander Plaats, Chris Rants, Rod Roberts, and Christian Fong, did a tremendous job delivering their speeches and intermingled well with the crowd. Rep. Rod Roberts did a great job in addressing both social issues like marriage and the fiscal issues concerning Governor Culver’s budget. Christian Fong looked like a candidate who hadn’t done many forums, but he interacted with people really well and impressed a number of people with is tone and the political approach of his speech. The drama at the forum however, was provided by the two candidates who have spent the last two weeks going back and forth with each other – Bob Vander Plaats and Chris Rants.
It was obvious that Vander Plaats was in his comfort zone at the event, and the forum was being held on his home turf. Vander Plaats was the second candidate to speak, and he provided plenty of red meat in his remarks. He talked about life, marriage, immigration, gambling, the 2nd amendment, I-Jobs, education and just about any other issue you could imagine.
The loudest applause line of the night came when Vander Plaats pledged to sign an executive order on his first day in office if elected Governor. His executive order would place a stay on gay marriages until the people of Iowa have an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment. Vander Plaats then asked if a candidate is not willing to die on the hill to defend marriage, what hill will they die on?
Vander Plaats also took a shot at Chris Rants, who has been critical of his financial stewardship of Opportunities Unlimited. Vander Plaats served as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Opportunities Unlimited from 1996 to 2003. Vander Plaats said that there are some candidates who have to tear someone down in order to build themselves up. He then stated that he isn’t running against the other candidates vying for the Republican nomination, but is running for Iowa.
While Vander Plaats speech was smooth, polished, and full of applause lines, Rants’ speech was incredibly personal, painfully honest, humble, and without any indication that he would back off his questioning of Vander Plaats record or that of any other candidate.
Rants responded to Vander Plaats’ criticism of his attacks by saying that the hill he is willing to die on is truth and honesty. Rants admitted that some of his opponents and their supporters are uncomfortable with his critique of their record, but he believes it’s important for the voters to know as much as possible about the candidates.
Rants used the majority of his speaking allotment to let people know about who he is as a person. Rants admitted that he has struggled in opening up to people in the past and admitted that his niche as a candidate is talking about specific policy proposals. On Saturday night, Rants opted to push those issues aside so that people get an opportunity to know him on a more personal level.
He told the story of when his wife was pregnant with his oldest daughter, Grace. Rants was a newly elected legislator and rushed home because his wife was having difficulties with the pregnancy. Rants admitted that, at the time, the reason he was pro-life as a candidate was because he ran as a Republican, and it was just what you did when you ran as a Republican. Rants then said that he didn’t become a pro-life candidate until he found himself on his knees in the chapel of St. Luke’s Hospital in Sioux City, praying not for the bundle of fetal tissue his wife was carrying, but his baby girl. It is because of that experience he has a pro-life voting record.
Rants also took issue with Vander Plaats’ executive order proposal. Rants was the last speaker of the night, and prior to him taking the stage, the loudest applause of the night came when Vander Plaats spoke about this proposal. Undaunted, Rants warned the crowd that gay marriage wasn’t brought to Iowa overnight, and we are not going to be able to overturn it in one day either.
Rants recalled how his collugues in the Iowa House asked him to help them force a vote on marriage in that chamber following the Supreme Court’s decision last April. He also explained to people how the Varnum decision was made possible because the left incrementally passed legislation that allowed homosexual couples to adopt children, be foster parents, and granted them special protection in the civil rights bill. Rants asked everyone in attendance to look across the table and ask each other where their outrage was when all of those things were happening.
Rants’ speech might not have been the most popular on Saturday night, but it was by far the most interesting, and the room was absolutely silent while he spoke. If any of the candidates were going to struggle to find support in the room that night, it was going to be Chris Rants. This wasn’t his type of crowd, and yet he might have gained the most of any candidate who attended the event.
Vander Plaats won the straw poll vote with 63% of the vote, followed by Christian Fong with 14%, Chris Rants with 13%, and Rod Roberts with 9%. The only other candidates receiving votes were former Governor Branstad with 3 votes, and Governor Culver with 1 vote. In talking with a number of people following the event, they all thought Rants did himself the most good with his speech. Many people were stunned by his honestly and tone.
One person I talked with said that he thought Rants would have been lucky to get ten votes before he gave his speech. Obviously Rants was able to win over a few people, as did Christian Fong. Everybody expected Vander Plaats to be the clear winner at the end of the night, but when all the votes were counted, a significant portion of those in attendance voted for someone other than Bob Vander Plaats. That means Vander Plaats may not have sole possession of value voters as many people have suggested.
All the candidates who attended the forum can rightfully look at the results of the night and feel that they were able to come away as a winner. If anyone is going to be deemed a loser, it would have be the two declared Republican gubernatorial candidates who didn’t attend. Both Sen. Jerry Behn and Sen. Paul McKinley were foolish not to attend the event.
The event was about as simple as it can get. No candidate was asked any questions by IFPC or the audience. It was a barbeque where candidates were allowed to work the tables, and then each candidate was given 15 minutes to speak. There just are not many times when primary candidates can speak to a group of 300 activists in the same room.
The folks at the Iowa Family Policy Center should be commended for putting together Saturday’s forum. Having more than 300 people attend such an event on the Saturday following the Iowa/Iowa State game is no small feat.
Photos by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
184 Comments on “Republican Candidates Faceoff at IFPC Forum”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow, BVP won the IFPC straw poll, whatta shocker!!! One-note Bob may want to die on the hill of “gay marriage”, but you can’t do anything if your dead! If the GOP wants to continue to be marginalized and live under dem majorities, that’s fine. As for me I’d much rather win the eletion, set the agenda, and actually do something meaningful besides starting another court fight that will most likely lose again. Why can’t we nominate somebody that could actually beat Culver? BVP ain’t it!
i am really starting to think Rants is my guy. he spoke in cedar rapids at their tea party event and was really exciting and refreshingly honest.
Good people here. It’s good to see Rants is finally getting the respect he deserves. He has shown extraordinary courage and also the best command of the economic issues facing Iowa.
> Vander Plaats then asked if a candidate is not willing to die on the hill to defend marriage, what hill will they die on?
Oh, I don’t know, how about the economy, job creation, improving education, improving infrastructure….etc, etc.
But BVP, you’re right, we should “live and die” on the hill of which types of adults can have consensual sex and form legal agreements with each-other.
>Rants also took issue with Vander Plaats’ executive order proposal. Rants was the last speaker of the night, and prior to him taking the stage, the loudest applause of the night came when Vander Plaats spoke about this proposal. Undaunted, Rants warned the crowd that gay marriage wasn’t brought to Iowa overnight, and we are not going to be able to overturn it in one day either.
Another reason I’m really starting to like Chris Rants. He didn’t pander to the crowd. He told them the truth.
I think the real news out of the straw poll isn’t that BVP won (that was a given) but that Christian Fong took second over Rants and Rod “I’m a minister” Roberts. Kid’s got some chops, that’s for sure.
Other than throwing cold water on the executive order idea, Rants failed to spell out how legalized same sex ‘marriage’ could be overturned or how he would bring the issue to a vote of the people.
Jeff,
Destroy the traditional family and you will destroy society. Unstable families result in economic instability so at some point you’re going to have to move beyond the mindless personal freedom argument.
VP is a complete idiot, still touting his executive order to end gay marriage. no one should vote for him because of his complete stupidity and lack of understanding on constitutional law. At least rants seems to have a clue on this. This response to VP on what hill to die on, is to tell him to stay on his gay marriage hill, while real leaders climb the economy hill. It is still about the economy stupid.
Silence
“at some point you’re going to have to move beyond the mindless personal freedom argument.”
Pegster, I thought you would be all about mindless personal freedom arguments, because it is personal freedom that allows you to post and expound your mindless arguments.
Silence
Peggy, I remember the comment from Maine Repub Senator Cohen at the summation of the Joint Congressional Hearings on the Iran-Contra affair and Ollie North’s shameful display of disdain for The Constitution and the American People; Sen Cohen admonished North by reminding him that the American People have a Constitutional Right to be wrong, and that it was not in LtCol North’s purview to be deciding what’s right or wrong for The People.
That applies equally to you and the rest of your christian taliban cronies.
Well said con dem
Silence Love the Christian taliban reference, is that yours or borrowed?
So, ConDem, who decided that polluting ground water was wrong? Or me shooting my neighbor?
Guys–I coined “Christian Taliban.”
And a good coin it is, MIE.
Peg posits another couple rhetoricals:”So, ConDem, who decided that polluting ground water was wrong? Or me shooting my neighbor?”
Making light of Peg, ConDem sez to 1): Damn sure not Republican industrialists; and to 2): heh-heh, that had to have been a Demo.
So you’re okay with certain people deciding what’s right and wrong for The People but not others???
Wow, you guys are smart.
Peg, DvfO finally got the point but you apparently haven’t yet figured out that ConDemo refuses to be subjected to cross examination. Debate (or more accurately, argument) by posing questions whse answers are presupposed is just not kosher, Girl.
Do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
Peggy, c’mon you make it to easy. None of the points you made are very logical (in my opinion)
> at some point you’re going to have to move beyond the mindless personal freedom argument.
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say that? Or was it Ben Franklin. Maybe it was Patrick Henry, right after he said:
“Give me liberty or give me death….And at some point your going to have to move beyond the mindless personal freedom argument”.
You’ve got be kidding. It’s ALL ABOUT personal freedom as long as you aren’t infringing on another persons rights or well-being.
> So, ConDem, who decided that polluting ground water was wrong? Or me shooting my neighbor?
Holy Crap!! You shot your neighbor? What, were they gay or not a Christian or something? (note, this is sarcasm)
> So you’re okay with certain people deciding what’s right and wrong for The People but not others???
Wait, isn’t that what we all believe to a very large degree?And the deeper question you are implying is, “where does morality come from”? That’s a bit heavy for this thread, but I’ll keep it short. I don’t think morality comes from God, because I think God is man-made. I believe morality is innate in human beings.
We live in an incredible country where we have personal freedom as a founding principle. We have laws in order to temper the rough edges of this personal freedom. You can’t do *anything* you want, but I’d rather err on the side of too much freedom than too little. Wouldn’t you?
“You’ve got be kidding. It’s ALL ABOUT personal freedom as long as you aren’t infringing on another persons rights or well-being ” –Jeff
Really, Jeff? What about prostitution and seatbelt laws? Or private business owners who WANT smokers in their establishments?
“I don’t think morality comes from God, because I think God is man-made.” –Jeff
Who died and made you God, Jeff? What makes you think your personal opinion counts for anything? This country wasn’t founded on Jeff’s personal opinion.
“I believe morality is innate in human beings.” –Jeff
Yes, Jeff, it’s called natural law but where does it come from?
>Really, Jeff?
Yes, really.
> What about prostitution?
I’d like to remind you that prostitution is not illegal throughout America. There are places in American where you can legally hire someone for sexual activity.
> and seatbelt laws?
I’m actually against seat belt laws. I think it’s a silly way for police departments to raise money. If you wanna die, go ahead. I wear mine though because mine saved my life before.
>Or private business owners who WANT smokers in their establishments?
We have evidence that smoking causes harm to *others* that don’t smoke. Very strong evidence, 2nd hand smoke is real and it kills people that didn’t ask for it.
Weak, Jeff. Very weak.
Gotta run.
> Who died and made you God, Jeff? What makes you think your personal opinion counts for anything? This country wasn’t founded on Jeff’s personal opinion.
Well stated. Our country was founded on my right to have a personal opinion though.
> Yes, Jeff, it’s called natural law but where does it come from?
Ourselves. You have *faith* that God exists, but you can’t prove it in anyway (otherwise it would be called science). I am so made that I cannot believe in God. But I don’t know, just as you don’t. You have faith that He exists….I do not. That’s our difference.
The golden rule is not something that you have to teach a child. It is innate. You don’t need to say, “and if you don’t follow this rule, you’ll burn in hell”
Jesus uses the story of the Good Samaritan as an exemplary example of kindness and goodness. But what is interesting is that the man from Samaria is not a Christian (obviously b/c JC was still alive) and also not a Jew. He was an atheist. So, where did his morality originate? Couldn’t have been Jesus, couldn’t have been God either.
> Weak, Jeff. Very weak.
I’d believe you if you would point out why.
I still want my quiz Peggy.
Geeze jer, if ya want a quiz from Peg wyancha just grab the loaded questions she throws at the rest of us.
jerickson,
You might be able to pass the pre-vote test, but you’d still vote for the smooth-talker who makes you feel all warm and fuzzy whether or not his stances are good for the country. Case in point: you voted for Obama.
I honestly don’t understand why you people who claim not to believe in God (Jeff) are always the first ones to bring religion into a discussion. Your paranoia is showing.
“I’d like to remind you that prostitution is not illegal throughout America. There are places in American where you can legally hire someone for sexual activity.” –Jeff
Two jobs for you, Jeff. Tell me where prostitution is legal, and then let’s talk about where it’s illegal and why. How is a woman prostituting herself harming anyone else (think second-hand smoke)?
“I’m actually against seat belt laws. I think it’s a silly way for police departments to raise money. If you wanna die, go ahead. I wear mine though because mine saved my life before.” — Jeff
Hold up, Jeff. What happened to your personal freedom mantra? The only reason you can come up with for being against seatbelt laws is that you think it’s a ’silly way for police departments to raise money’? How is not wearing a seatbelt harmful to anyone? Then you go totally grade school with, “If you wanna die, go ahead.” Did I say I wanted to die? Did I say I don’t wear a seatbelt???
“We have evidence that smoking causes harm to *others* that don’t smoke. Very strong evidence, 2nd hand smoke is real and it kills people that didn’t ask for it.” –Jeff
Again, Jeff, you glossed over my reference to the PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER who WANTS smokers in his establishment. Why are you defending his personal freedom? The people who don’t like smoke don’t have to go into a bar that allows smoking.
Your arguments are riddled with hypocrisy.
Correction: Why AREN’T you defending his personal freedom?
No, Peggy, I was making the case that the Dems have done a lot better job with their messaging than Republicans. We appear to be stuck in the past at times, obsessing over who is the next Ronald Reagan. While I believe Reagan was a good president, he was elected almost 30 years ago. There are new issues and problems we need to deal with and we need somebody who is forward thinking. The Republican Party has many solid governors and other candidates who fit that bill. Let’s highlight them and put together a message that appeals to the broad electorate. My point was that Obama did that, while McCain struggled to do so.
Obama had a feel-good message but there was no substance to it so the people were essentially hypnotized by his delivery. McCain was too middle-of-thre-road and bringing Palin on the ticket was his only salvation.
Dare I say that Americans are shallow to the degree that good looks and youth can win an election?
Peg sez: “Dare I say that Americans are shallow to the degree that good looks and youth can win an election”
HAH!
Were that entirely true, the talibani bimbo would’ve fulfilled the hail-mary expectations brought on by her surprise entry into the national campaign. She is one heckuva more “babe” than Obama.
McCain had so much ground to make up even Sarah the Babe couldn’t redeem his sorry campaign.
And don’t forget, there are more registered shallow Democrat voters than Republicans.
pegster, palin gave mccain nothing more than a shallow boost for a month, then most americans came to realize she was wholly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and was a twit, even mccain realized this and his staff. she will still be a hero to idiots like you but will only hurt the republican party into the future. They wish she will go away. in reality, she should write her book, sign on for a talk show and hit the speaking circuit, strike while the iron still has some heat.
Silence
Who asked you, Silence?
it’s a blog pegster, no one needs to ask me to correct your lunatic posts.
Silence
Con dem, not to mention the $150,000.00 make over they gave to talibani sarah from alaska, and still the american voters were not “shallow” enought to vote for her, well except for the pegster and her crowd.
Silence
Well you see, Silence, there was a little exchange going on between jerickson and myself and then you butted in with your personal insults. Beat it, loser.
McCain would have performed better if 1) he had been true to his moderate character and campaigned as a moderate rather than kowtowing to the wingnut fringe and 2) left Paleozoic Palin where she belonged–in Alaska watching the comings and goings of her family, especially her fornicating daughter.
So conservatives are now the “wingnut fringe?”
I guess that term’s lost its meaning now, too…sort of like ‘racist.’
Peggy: You are not a conservative in the classical sense. Read Russell Kirk and Allan Bloom sometime. The founders and their predecessors recoiled at the likes of you. Our founders, with the religious wars in mind, want to “defang” religion to avoid strife. Religion was relegated to the realm of opinion rather than the higher realm of “knowledge.” I am a conservative in a classical sense. BVP and his cult-like zombies are nothing but fringe elements that in no way should be considered conservative. Rather they are religious fanatics seeking to impose their religious views on others. Bottom line: I have never lost sight of what conservatism stands for.
Peggy, why the hostility?
> Two jobs for you, Jeff. Tell me where prostitution is legal, and then let’s talk about where it’s illegal and why.
Throughout Clark County, in Nevada. That includes Las Vegas.
> How is a woman prostituting herself harming anyone else (think second-hand smoke)?
Prostitution encourages human (including children) trafficking and transmits sexual disease. And before you start talking about homosexuals, remember, promiscuity is the problem, not sexual preference.
That being said, if it were legalized and regulated, I think some of these issues could be mitigated.
> Hold up, Jeff. What happened to your personal freedom mantra? The only reason you can come up with for being against seatbelt laws is that you think it’s a ’silly way for police departments to raise money’?
No, that *is* my personal freedom “mantra”. The reason I am against it is because not wearing a seatbelt can only harm *me*. Not anyone else. So making me where one feels like my personal choice is being removed.
> Then you go totally grade school with, “If you wanna die, go ahead.” Did I say I wanted to die? Did I say I don’t wear a seatbelt???
I wasn’t directing the comment at you, it was rhetorical. I was making an example about personal freedom. It’s “your” choice. By “your” I mean everyone’s individual choice. Sheesh.
> Again, Jeff, you glossed over my reference to the PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER who WANTS smokers in his establishment. Why are you defending his personal freedom?
I thought I made this clear. I defend personal freedom when it doesn’t infringe on others. What if a private business owner wanted to allow cock-fighting? It’s his own business, so he should have the right, right? The answer is obviously, NO. Second hand smoke kills people. If I go to a restaurant and the guy next to me smokes, he’s taken away my choice, and he is now damaging my health.
> Your arguments are riddled with hypocrisy.
I think you mis-understand the meaning of hypocrisy. I didn’t say anything that I don’t believe, so by definition, I’m not being a hypocrite.
> Peggy: You are not a conservative in the classical sense. Read Russell Kirk and Allan Bloom sometime. The founders and their predecessors recoiled at the likes of you. Our founders, with the religious wars in mind, want to “defang” religion to avoid strife. Religion was relegated to the realm of opinion rather than the higher realm of “knowledge.”
I couldn’t agree more.
MIE,
What are you, an anti-religious fanatic? Why do you keep bringing up religion?
You found ONE COUNTY in the country that has legalized prostitution? I’m sure we can agree, though, that we shouldn’t use Las Vegas as the standard for a discussion about prostitution, right? Let’s stick to the State of Iowa and the hypocrisy of its various laws.
You said, “Prostitution encourages human (including children) trafficking and **transmits sexual disease**. And before you start talking about homosexuals, remember, **promiscuity is the problem**, not sexual preference.”
Jeff, you must be completely oblivious to the CDC’s recent statement on the rise of HIV/AIDS among gay and bisexual men even though they’ve been preaching to them for at least two decades on the potentially life-saving benefits of condom use.
Don’t ignore the facts, Jeff.
Peggy you are not a true conservative, true conservatives do not want to intrude on people’s personal lives and try to force morals on people like you do. You support a truly bastardized version of conservatism that as MIE has coined, is more properly referred to as the christian taliban. You are the exact reason the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state. You would use government to impose your religion and morals on everybody. Pegster , you and your christian taliban friends are what the founding fathers feared.
Silence
“Well you see, Silence, there was a little exchange going on between jerickson and myself and then you butted in with your personal insults. Beat it, loser.”
Sorry pegster that this is the best you can come up with to refute my post, are you still in Jr. High???
Silence
RIGTH ON! SILENCE,
RIGHT ON!
People like Peggy is not only what drives many away from the Republican Party, she and those of her narrow minded ilk, are one of the reasons, it not the the most imporant reason, so many people are also leaving the Christian Religion.
Sure, there are more Catholics now than before only this is totally caused by the number of legal and illegals from Catholic countries.
Neil C. Reinhardt
RIGHT ON! SILENCE,
RIGHT ON!
People like Peggy is not only what drives many away from the Republican Party, she and those of her narrow minded ilk, are one of the reasons, it not the the most imporant reason, so many people are also leaving the Christian Religion.
Sure, there are more Catholics now than before only this is totally caused by the number of legal and illegals from Catholic countries.
Neil C. Reinhardt
RIGHT ON! SILENCE,
RIGHT ON!
People like Peggy is not only what drives many away from the Republican Party, she and those of her narrow minded ilk, are one of the reasons, it not the the most imporant reason, so many people are also leaving the Christian Religion.
Sure, there are more Catholics now than before only this is totally caused by the number of legal and illegals from Catholic countries.
Next, in those COUNTRIES where prostitution IS LEGAL, the STD rates are LOWER as are the unwanted pregancies. And not only is the Sex crime rates LESS so is the rates for ALL crimes!
Neil C. Reinhardt
Neil C… how do you know that people like Peggy are the reason people are leaving Christianity? That is your opinion based on nothing.
MIE and Silence… if the founders wanted to get religion out of our government why did John Adams say this “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” They simply didn’t want the government imposing a religion on its people.
Every government imposes its morality on people. We do it every day. They are called laws. We make laws to impose a particular morality on people. It’s really just a matter of which morality you’re going by. And it just so happens that our Western (and American) notion of morality comes from the Judeo-Christian, Biblical view.
People like you don’t like it because you want to do whatever you want without guilt or accountability. THAT view is the reason people are leaving Christianity (if that is in fact true).
Tyler: There is no doubt that our laws have their roots in religion and morality and Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed the Founders were religious for the most part but made it abundantly clear their fear of religious wars, especially those that ravaged Europe in the 17th and 18th Century. The social contract was that one could practice one’s religion as one saw fit as long as they swore allegiance to the Constitution and obeyed the law. Nothing more. What is being fought on these blogs is to what degree religion should influence politics. My read of our history suggests to me religion should be left to the churches and removed from politics.
Aye MIE, and a deeper look at “the founders” predecessors, the earliest settlers of New England gives a us a glimpse of some terribly dark theocracy in practice. Our American history regrettably contains incidents of gruesome capital punishment (death by burning or drowning) with the goal of keeping the citizenry loyally observing the state-defined religion. That same history also contains incidents of painful, disfiguring, and humiliating burning of one’s skin with a branding iron with the goal of controlling the citizenry’s adherance to the state church’s moral dictates.
Again, WHY do you anti-religious fanatics keep bringing up religion? WHY???????
Peggy: I’m not anit-religious. I just think religion and politics don’t mix. To answer your question, I will quit bringing up religion if you do.
CD–the founders were well aware of this history and its antecedents in Europe.
” I will quit bringing up religion if you do.” — MIE
Yeah. I bet.
Peggy: Do we have a deal?
pegster, no one brings up religion more than you, it is the backbone of every boneheaded argument you try to make. con dem, you are exactly right the founders did not want the religious wars of europe or a repeat of the theocracies that were initially set up here in america by people who were ironically seeking “religious freedom.” The founders wanted separation of church and state so there could be true religious freedom (and that includes whether to be religious or not), and not allow the peggies of the world to impose their religion and view of morality on everyone else through government.
Silence
Peggy: When you get a shot ring up Missa Luba Sanctus on YouTube and tell me what you think.
MIE,
Not if you get to decide what’s religious talk and what’s not.
So, Silence, you’re against the criminilization of prostitution, murder and smoking in privately owned businesses? You’re against seatbelt laws? Somebody inflicted their morals on the public when those laws were passed.
Let’s see your lawyerly skills at work. Make your case.
seatbelt laws deal with religion??? smoking in private businesses is religious?? not against prostitution if regulated. against murder. You see peggy, once again you post something that shows you miss the entire point of the debate. The debate is what is motivating these laws. Is the church behind this, or a secular government passing laws for the common good of the people and there is a government interest in doing so, or passing them simply because they feel that is what their god wants them to do. You don’t have to be religious to be against murder, or prostitution, or for seatbelt laws. Atheists and catholics can be against murder, but they may disagree that abortion is murder. Both may support marriage and family values but may disagree on gay marriage. Outlawing gay marriage because the bible says so, is not a government interest, same with abortion. If you can come up with a government interest, than it is ok. Do you ever get tired of sounding clueless???
Silence
Ummm…..MIE? Do you think you can convince your friend, Silence, to quit bringing up religion?
Peggy, religion was the basis of your questions, I have seen your tired old arguments before, so stop pretending that is not where you were going.
Silence
“Is the church behind this, or a secular government passing laws for the common good of the people and there is a government interest in doing so, or passing them simply because they feel that is what their god wants them to do. ” — Silence
Are you suggesting we chuck any secular legislation that happens to be in agreement with what the church is saying merely for the sake of rebuking religion?
Read the post again peggy, or maybe better, have someone read for you and tell you what it means, because obviously you can’t read it and comprehend. I have no problem with legislation that is for the common good and in the government’s interest if it happens to agree with some religious teachings, whatever religion that may be. What I am against is religious legislation that isn’t for the common good or a government interest.
Silence
“What I am against is religious legislation that isn’t for the common good or a government interest.” — Silence
Can you cite some examples of such legislation?
prohibition against gay marriage, prohibition against alcohol (the repealed 18th amendment)to name a few.
> MIE and Silence… if the founders wanted to get religion out of our government why did John Adams say this “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” They simply didn’t want the government imposing a religion on its people.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists (which has been referenced in Supreme Court decisions) stating:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Re-read that last sentence to yourself. It is clear that religion should be separated from the state.
“What I am against is religious legislation that isn’t for the common good or a government interest.” — Silence
Are you also against secular legislation that isn’t for the common good or the government interest?
> Are you also against secular legislation that isn’t for the common good or the government interest?
Peggy, what Silence is saying is that legislation (or arguments) based on religious principles are not inherently bad. They are bad when they don’t serve a purpose other than to further a religious opinion.
For example, take the Plegde of Allegiance. It never contained “under God” in the original. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist Minister…yet it still contained no reference to God. It was until 1954, (during the Cold War) when the enemy was godless atheistic communism, claiming allegiance under God differentiated us from our enemies.
And to add my own point, I’m against ANY legislation that’s *for my own good*. I’ll decide that myself, thank you very much (as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else or infringe on their rights).
Excellent quote Jeff. pegster, yes I would be against legislation against the common good and government interest, however, I will beat you to the punch, I believe a government healthcare plan to provide healthcare to all is for the common good and in the government’s interest. Now peggy, stop, please stop making a fool out of yourself.
Silence
Jeff, we can try to say in any number of ways, but the sad fact of the matter is, peggy doesn’t want to understand, she just wants to push her narrow moral and religious views.
Silence
“Peggy, what Silence is saying is that legislation (or arguments) based on religious principles are not inherently bad.” — Jeff
He is? Where are you getting that idea?
Peggy, you really need to take a reading comprehension class.
Silence
I’ll ask again, Silence: Are you also against secular legislation that isn’t for the common good or the government interest?
pegster, go back to what I posted at 14:50, have some read it for you, I am not answering the question again. Again, reading comprehension class would be good for you, maybe some hooked on phonics???
Silence
Jefferson and Adams definitely differed theologically. Adams today would probably be called an evangelical and Jefferson for sure wouldn’t be. But what they all pretty much agreed on was that our rights and nature’s laws come from God. And even though they differed somewhat in theology, they all pretty much subscribed to the Judeo-Christian version of morality which they believed came from God.
Adams’ quote that I used above indicates to me that he took it for granted that Americans would also subscribe to this belief even if they differ some in their exact religious views. There was the belief that God would bless a country that uses Him as their foundation. I think it is obvious that has happened. But then the converse is true also. If we completely turn our back on Him, there are negative consequences for that as well. I think we’re seeing that now.
I know several of you will claim that the US prospered because we kept religion separate from government. But that is not the case. Jefferson was maybe the least Christian founder, yet he included multiple references to God in the Declaration that they all signed.
Again, every law is attempt to push a certain morality on others. It is just a matter of whose morality you’re using.
Sorry I missed that. Your presupposition about health care reform sidetracked me.
Can you give some examples of secular laws that aren’t for the common good?
Tyler – you are way off base on this one.
> Tyler: There is no doubt that our laws have their roots in religion and morality and Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yes there is. Benjamin Franklin was a clear Atheist (he said so). Thomas Jefferson was decidedly NOT Christian, and would be called a Deist. But not Judeo-Christian in anyway.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as “the ravings of a maniac.”
This is a man we put on Mount Rushmore. An extremely important founding father, and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
In addition, historical scholar agree that the works of 3 men most heavily influenced our constitution (the “framers”): Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and John Adams.
Thomas Paine was at best a Deist, publicly criticized Christianity, and often expressed atheistic views. He was *certainly* not a Christian.
John Adams was a member of the Unitarian church, and often criticized the Catholic Church’s claims to universal authority.
John Adams was sympathetic to Christianity though when he wrote: “I have attended public worship in all countries and with all sects and believe them all much better than no religion, though I have not thought myself obliged to believe all I heard.”
However, with a quote like that, I doubt Steve Deace or BVP would ever vote for him. Peggy definitely wouldn’t.
We are *not* founded on Christian principles. It’s a pure myth.
> Jefferson was maybe the least Christian founder, yet he included multiple references to God in the Declaration that they all signed.
That’s an incredible understatement. He put together his own Bible, stripped of all the parts out of the New Testament that he believed were supernatural, contradictory, and what he presumed to be misinterpreted (probably was pretty thin when he got done).
How many references are their in the Declaration of Independence are there to God? The answer is two:
(1) [...]endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[...]
(2) [...]equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them[...]
And there is NO mention of religion. So “God” is ambiguous at best…could be Hindu, Greek, Roman, Christian, Jewish, or one I made up the other day.
More importantly than any vague reference to God is the explicit statement that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods.
> But then the converse is true also. If we completely turn our back on Him, there are negative consequences for that as well. I think we’re seeing that now.
That is pure mysticism. Why is that mysticism? Because you have zero evidence. You can’t point to bad things that happen (but pick a time in history and so can I), but that is no evidence for your angry God’s vengeance.
“Tyler: There is no doubt that our laws have their roots in religion and morality and Judeo-Christian tradition.”
You are correct, Tyler.
Silence, Can you give some examples of SECULAR laws in the state of Iowa that aren’t for the common good?
Well again pegster, the marriage act requiring a marriage be between a man and a woman. Didn’t think I had to connect such blatant dots.
Silence
How old are you, Silence? You seriously thought our marriage laws weren’t for the common good? When did you come to that conclusion? Are you sure you weren’t led to that conclusion by outsiders?
What about the seatbelt law? Don’t you think it’s overreaching and not so much for the common good?
> “Tyler: There is no doubt that our laws have their roots in religion and morality and Judeo-Christian tradition.”
> You are correct, Tyler.
No, he isn’t. And if you disagree, prove it. I believe I made a solid case for why it is not founded on Christian principles.
> How old are you, Silence? You seriously thought our marriage laws weren’t for the common good?
That’s not what he said. He said laws defining marriage between only a man and woman.
> What about the seatbelt law? Don’t you think it’s overreaching and not so much for the common good?
I think it’s overreaching, although I think it is for someone’s own protection. However, I don’t need my government protecting me from harming only myself in a potential traffic accident. If I don’t wear a seatbelt it does not harm anyone else.
It appears to me that this discussion needs taken down to its bare bones. Our nation is founded on the statement that “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, AND that they are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness [originally property]”
We have our rights to personal freedoms because they are given us by our Creator. (I am willing to debate proofs of God with anyone who wants to contact me elsewhere.) We have the liberty to live as we chose because our Creator gave us that right. However, our Creator never gave us the right to hurt others with our actions. Examples from above:
Seat belts – You have the liberty not to wear one, provided you are responsible for the consequences. Our state legislature has infringed on our liberty because too many people were not being responsible for the consequences.
Smoking and other drug use – You have the liberty to smoke and consume other presumed harmful substances, provided you do so responsibly, are responsible for your actions while effected by those substances, and your use does not forcefully impact others. The state legislature has infringed our liberties because we did not exercise them responsibly and our actions while under the influence were harmful to innocent bystanders.
Smoking in Public Establishments – Private Business owners have the liberty to allow smoking in or on their property. Patrons have the liberty to frequent those establishments, or not. All are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Marriage is an entirely different beast. It is extremely convoluted so this response\rebuttal gets a little convoluted. I will try to outline it in numbered points – 1)You have the liberty to marry whomever you chose, provided they consent to the relationship. However, marriage does not just effect the two consenting adults entering into the relationship. Most marriages include children who will be forcefully involved in the relationship. Whether conveived naturally within the marriage, or adopted from outside the marriage, children will be involved and can be hurt by an improper marriage. People are responsible for their actions within that marriage. 2)Additionally, marriage is not just a relationship. Marriage is currently a State Recognized and therefore a State Defined relationship. If the State issues the marriage, then the State can decide who to issue the license to. 3)In the DOMA of ‘98 the State Legislature, the segment of the state government that writes laws, and defines terms, decided that State Sanctioned Marriage is defined as a relationship between one Man and one Woman. That opened a can of worms that we are fighting about still today, including the Unconstitutional Action of the Iowa Supreme Court and Governor Culver demanding that County Recorders issue unlawful marriage licenses to couples other than one man and one woman. Subsequently, both the Judges that issued the ruling, and more importantly, the Governor who enforced it, need to be impeached for attempting to exercise unconstitutional power by defying the DOMA of ‘98. If the State Legislature agrees with the OPINION of the State Supreme Court as handed down in Varnum vs. Briem then they should amend or repeal DOMA of ‘98, and all other related section of Iowa Code to recognize relationships between same gendered couples as marriages. 4)Marriage is a religious\cultural construct, not a legal one. The state stepped out of line when it started trying to regulate who can marry whom. We would do well to remove all legal definitions of marriage and leave the defining of religious\cultural relationships to religion and common culture. (Of course, the state will need to be involved in the legal contracts that are part of the marriage relationship (joint property, child custody, domestic abuse, etc.) but those things are all adequately covered by other parts of the Iowa Code. Joint Property disputes are handled in Civil Court all the time. Abuse is handled in its entirety in Criminal Court whether it includes the word domestic or not. In fact “domestic” is a modifier applied to general abuse\violence sections of the Iowa Code now anyway. Custody rights are also handled in the Iowa Code. Civil Court also handles disputes over custody of dependents other than biological just children.)
Our Creator is the basis of our laws, natural, societal, cultural, and legal. If we remove that base from any of these categories the hole house comes tumbling down.
@ belikebunce
I’d love to debate the existence of God with you, however that would be a bit tough, because belief in God is an act of faith. Otherwise, it would be based on fact, and that is called science. The burden of proof is on you.
However, it would be a waste of time for both of us, because without evidence, I cannot believe. I am without faith in this instance.
> It appears to me that this discussion needs taken down to its bare bones. Our nation is founded on the statement that “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, AND that they are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness [originally property]”
To which creator did they refer? To Jefferson’s deist beliefs? Franklin’s atheist beliefs? Paine’s atheism? The God of the other founders? They never say. They don’t talk about any religion or God. It’s ambiguous and you know it. Don’t twist their words to match your God…because they don’t specify.
I should add that since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was certainly not talking about Christianity. As I wrote earlier, this is a man (Jefferson) that wrote:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
and he also wrote:
The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as “the ravings of a maniac.”
This man wrote the document you cite. Seems clear to me he didn’t refer to a Christian creator.
Please tell me Jeff. How did I twist their words? Did any of them no believe in Governmental Liberty Liberty to do as we please unless we infringe upon the liberty of others? That is my only assumption about their Creator.
> Please tell me Jeff. How did I twist their words?
Ah, forgive me, I misspoke (or mistyped as it were). Upon re-reading your comments, I realized I made (and argued against) an assumption that you did not state or imply.
Regards
I never referred to a Christianity anywhere in my comment, or any other religion for that matter. You twisted my words if you infer that I referred (implicitly or explicitly) to Christianity.
You are most certainly forgiven.
Peggy, marriage laws are not about the common good of the nation. They are simply meant to to regulate the system in which two people can form a civil contract together in order to establish a family unit.
WHERE’s THE ALTOONA ATTORNEY??? WHY DOES JEFF KEEP ANSWERING FOR SILENCE???
“If I don’t wear a seatbelt it does not harm anyone else.” — Jeff
You’re partly correct, Jeff. Not wearing a seatbelt doesn’t harm anyone else but it also doesn’t harm YOU. You take a risk by not wearing one but that’s not harmful in and of itself.
Pegster, I don’t think jeff is answering for me, he was having an intellectual discussion with another blogger, probably one you can’t understand. I replied for a third time to your silly question. And pegster, I am not from altoona, but am sure there are some fine folks there, not sure why you think this is an insult. Did they run you out of altoona for being the town idiot???
Silence
No pegster, once again, to my shock, you fail to understand, marriage laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not for the common good but strictly to make church types like you feel better, as the supreme court pointed out, there is no state interest in banning gay marriage, only a church interest. Once again you prove ron white right, you can’t fix stupid.
Silence
“there is no state interest in banning gay marriage” — Silence
But is there a state interest in ALLOWING same sex ‘marriage’????
Peggy if you can’t ban it then by default your allowing it.
Whether you think it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant to the state and federal constitutions.
I personally believe that being rude to the President while he is giving a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make it illegal or unconstitutional.
Vast Variety – Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, you realize there is nothing legal about “legalized same gender marriage”
If it’s not illegal then it is legal.
I guess I should ask the question, what, in your opinion makes legalized same sex marriage not legal?
“I personally believe that being rude to the President while he is giving a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives to be morally wrong, but that doesn’t make it illegal or unconstitutional.”
I personally believe it to be immoral for the president of the US to stand on the floor of the US House of Representatives and lie to the American people.
HOT DANG!!!! dvfO is back.
Missed you m’boy, been too serious and stogey around here. Good to see you back and ya didn’t even miss a beat jumping back in.
VastVariety – very simply the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act voted into law by the Iowa Legislature in 1998 and signed by then Governor Vilsack defined marriage as a consensual relationship between one man and one woman and recognized by the state by way of a properly filed marriage license.
Since that Act was made law, the Iowa Legislature has taken no action to change that law. That is why “legalized same gender marriage” is illegal.
The Supreme Court has no legislative power. They cannot write or enact law, they cannot amend or repeal law, and they most certainly cannot strike down law. They can review it, and give a ruling on how it applies in individual cases. They can also publish legal opinions about the law. in Varnum vs Brien the State Supreme Court ruled that Timothy J. Brien Polk County Recorder and his office must issue marriage licenses to couples Kate Varnum\Trish Varnum and Dawn BarbouRoske\Jen BarbouRoske. They also published their opinion that the DOMA of ‘98 was an unconstitutional law, and cited their reasonings. However, inspite of being made aware of that judicial opinion, the Iowa State Legislature took no action to modify or repeal the law. In essence, they by their inaction told the Supreme Court that they did not care for the opinion of the Court, and that the DOMA of ‘98 would stand as written.
Jeff… if you were presented with evidence that proves there that God exists would you believe it? Because there is plenty of it out there. Atheism is an absolutely indefensible, overly simplistic, dead end that simply gives people an excuse to do whatever they want with any real consequences. An atheistic argument has absolutely no chance of standing up to the mountain of evidence for God with any person who is open to really examining this evidence.
Western thought and morality is clearly based on Judeo-Christian morality. If Jefferson thought it was all BS, why did he write the “God stuff” in? You all also missed another reference to God; the very last statement, “…with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…” They clearly believed that without God’s blessing, this country would fail.
Marriage absolutely is an issue that involves the common good. We can’t exactly prosper if we don’t have a next generation can we? If we promote same sex marriage aren’t we promoting our own extinction? It’s funny, most people that are in favor of same sex marriage are evolutionists.
I think the world we live in today shows that God is allowing us to reap what we’ve sown. But we’re going to have to agree to disagree on many of these issues. The mods think the Christians are frightening all the voters into voting Democrat. And the Christians argue that we haven’t attempted to elect real Christians lately and look at the results? It’s kind of fun arguing about it, but nobody is really changing their minds unless the hearts change first.
Silence Dogood is an A**hole. Capital A. Actually, most of you people are. Except Peggy and a few others. This is like a liberal cesspool around here.
Well that was certainly a well researched and enlightening posting.
Thank you.
Here’s what cesspool means, to help you flaming liberals out.
cess·pool (sspl)
n.
1. A covered hole or pit for receiving drainage or sewage, as from a house.
2. A filthy, disgusting, or morally corrupt place. This is what the word “Liberal” brings to mind. But that’s just me.
Flame away Flamers. Hang in there, Peggy. Anonomouz Out
Good lord, are y’all still on this? It really musta been a slow week around here!!! I do find it interesting that professing libertarian views is now equated with atheism, etc.! I hate to break it to some of you(Tyler), but not all Christians secretly long for a theocracy. I find it kinda intersting that the same folks professing how our Republic should be Christian based(the majority culture of that time was indeed protestant Christian) had no problem with the Huckster promoting socialism as long as he threw enough “God words” around.
Is there really a state interest in marriage? I submit that there shouldn’t be any government involvement and it should remain merely a social and religious contract. Gay people want to get “married” or whatever, why should we have to license and regulate it in the first place? Whatever happened to “what God therefore hath put together, let no man put asunder”? Where exactly does it say that you needed to get a permit from Ceasar first(and I don’t mean “render unto Ceasar….” either)?
Let’s all go back and read the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..” Why is it then we as Christians have a coniption fit anytime our faith is attacked, but many of those same people have absolutely zero tolerance of any other view? I don’t want my rights to the “free exercise” of my religion infringed, but I also don’t want to see my religious beliefs used to promote or establishing a religious criteria for political candidates, particularly in the GOP. We have more than enough problems to deal with besides being continually mired in the same old religious arguements!!!
Anonomouz, you need to get a clue about the difference between libertarians(not necessarily the “Libertarian” party) and liberals. The Founding fathers were indeed for the most part libertarians!
When I say “out”, that means I’m no longer on the frequency, so why are you talking to me? But to respond to your comment, I actually like libertarians, but have extreme distaste for liberals. Not exactly sure why you thought I had anything to say about libertarians….?
Dogood is a liberal, not a libertarian, and knows more about which drapes to select for the foyer than law.
Anon, sorry if I mis-understood. I kinda actually miss “Steve Right” and few others that used to post here, they are truly LIBERALS!
Dogood and SteveRight are the same person. Figured you knew that.
Yeah, but Steve R. was much more “flambouyant”!!!
Timmy, I agree with you, the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all whether it be gay or straight marriage. However, currently, there are many laws on the books regarding things like family medical leave, tax laws that provide benefits to married couples, laws surrounding inheritance and inheritance taxes that in this day and age would make it very difficult to get the government out of the business of marriage.
Then let’s change the damn tax code!!! If 10% is good enough for the lord……
You are correct. But Dogood is flambouyant, I’m sure of it. Just not sure if that’s how you spell flambouyant. I guess it’s right. Anyway, I get a kick out of all the crap that Peggy gets because she has religious beliefs, and goes ahead and states them. It’s like it’s OK to have a belief, as long as it isn’t based on any sort of religion. I’m Ok with Liberarianism, basically a free for all with little government intervention. I can then own any kind of weapons I want, as long as I don’t hurt anyone with them. That’s how it should be. If we all can become Libertarians, and the gays want to have their own little enclave with their freedoms, that would be just great. But unfortunately, the same people who want to take away the rights of business owners to allow smoking in their establishments are the people pushing for gay marriage. Their arguments are flawed. Peggy points it out all the time, but gets ridiculed. Here’s the point. If a bar owner CHOOSES to allow smoking on his private property, and warns people that smoking is allowed on his property, then HOW ARE ANYONE’s RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED UPON? NON SMOKERS DO NOT HAVE TO ENTER!!!!!! If two men can legally be married, because it doesn’t hurt anyone, and they have the right to do what they want, then a business owner has the right to allow smoking, because NO ONE IS FORCED TO GO IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT! But the Liberals have an agenda, which means taking away rights from certain types of people, and giving new rights to other types of people. Libertarians just want the government out of their face. Liberals want to use government to force their way of life on the rest of us.
Vast Variety,
Thanks anyway but my question was for Silence, the unethical lawyer from Altoona.
I wonder what poor sap got socked for his hourly fee today while he played on the computer.
No one. He’s not a lawyer. He’s an interior decorator.
Well, if he’s not a lawyer then he’s a liar. But we could’ve pretty much guessed that by his behavior on this blog.
Anon, While I support Marriage Equality I think the smoking bans are ridicules intrusions of government and should be repealed.
Vast – >> “I guess I should ask the question, what, in your opinion makes legalized same sex marriage not legal?”
I responded. Are you going to?
“If a bar owner CHOOSES to allow smoking on his private property, and warns people that smoking is allowed on his property, then HOW ARE ANYONES RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED UPON?” EXACTLY!!!! I for the life of me can’t understand why folks that claim conservatism can tell others with a straight face that they cannot consume a LEGAL product on their own property. Do all of our personal rights apply ONLY if the majority has somehow deemed them “socially acceptable”? Ask any smoker lately and I think you’ll find the answer!
Timmy – If anyone actively posting on this site believes that the Smoking Ban is in any way a good thing, I must have missed it. I certainly don’t support it, and I don’t know anyone that does.
bunce, look thru the archives because you’d be surprised just how many that there actually are around here. You are right though in thinking there shouldn’t be!
belikebunce Yes, I all ready responded to you.
Re the smoking / public issue:
Not at all sure about this, but I vaguely recall some course in college mentioning some kind of a long-held (common law so-to-speak? ) concept that a business being operated in an “open to the public” manner, or in other words, actually hanging a sign and “inviting” walk-in public access, is indeed subject to being regulated in ways that “protect” the general welfare of those members of the public who take up the invitation to enter and so indeed enter therein.
I know I used a lot of quotation marks around certain words and that is because, like I said, I am hazy in the recalling of that old legal concept. Or for that matter, if such a concept even really exists.
Any legals on here who can either elaborate or correct what I wrote there?
CD: Private property is the bulwark of our democracy. However the government in the exercise of its police powers can regulate it. This tension between an owner’s rights and the government’s exercise of police powers has been with us from the founding of this country. Examples abound: condemnation, zoning, environmental mandates, etc. The smoking ban bothers me not a whit. Bar owners have been under the regulatory microscope forever. Using the logic advanced by some on these threads there would be no curfew on drinking, bar owners could sell to minors etc–all in the name of the sanctity of private property. “If people don’t like to be around 16 years olds drinking in my bar then they shouldn’t come here.” See my point?
> Jeff… if you were presented with evidence that proves there that God exists would you believe it?
Absolutely.
> An atheistic argument has absolutely no chance of standing up to the mountain of evidence for God with any person who is open to really examining this evidence.
Where’s the evidence? I thought that’s why it’s called *Faith* because you have to have faith to believe it. That’s not a bad thing or a dirty word. If I want to be glib, I’d say, I need evidence to believe in God, you don’t…you have faith.
> If Jefferson thought it was all BS, why did he write the “God stuff” in?
He wrote Creator. That is vague at best. If he was Christian, why didn’t he allude to Jesus, or if he were Jewish, why didn’t he make it explicit? Why would this man keep us guessing? Because he thought it was silly. Again, he Thomas Jefferson (the one on Mt. Rushmore) wrote:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
> It’s kind of fun arguing about it, but nobody is really changing their minds unless the hearts change first.
I agree. I don’t expect to change your mind, because you are luckier than I to have Faith that an afterlife exists, and that you have a benevolent Creator.
I am so made that I cannot believe. We are still brothers of the human race, and I will readily admit that I do not know the answer. But I contend that you do not either.
Regards
Moderation – I accept your logic. It is sound. Your logical conclusions about property owners’ rights also exactly express my views. (Using the logic advanced by some on these threads there would be no curfew on drinking, bar owners could sell to minors etc–all in the name of the sanctity of private property. “If people don’t like to be around 16 years olds drinking in my bar then they shouldn’t come here.”) It is the responsibility of the property owner, and the parent to restrict alcohol consumption by minors, and it is also the responsibility of the property owner and the alcohol consumer to drink responsibly. Hold people accountable for the consequences\results of their actions. That position respects the “inalienable right” of the “pursuit of happiness [originally property].”
> We can’t exactly prosper if we don’t have a next generation can we? If we promote same sex marriage aren’t we promoting our own extinction? It’s funny, most people that are in favor of same sex marriage are evolutionists.
So your argument is that if we have gay marriage, we are promoting extinction? That’s the one you want to go with? Really? Are you sure?
Ok then. I know my wife (in the biblical sense) and neither she nor I plan to stop practicing to have children. I have gay friends, and it still doesn’t make me less attracted to women.
Make a better argument, and I might believe you.
Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is a personality disorder, not a genetic mutation as some would have us believe. SSA and all its trappings are not good for the individuals involved or society, and ‘marriage’ between two persons of the same sex amounts to a covenant between them to remain unhealed.
The state can’t force persons with SSA into treatment but neither should she lock them into their disorder by granting legal status to their SS relationships.
BTW, my comments are not meant to disparage persons with SSA; they have and continue to be victimized by the politicization of this issue.
“Marriage expresses a public judgment that every child deserves a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that sexual and emotional needs of adults count for more than the needs of children.” — Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
> “Marriage expresses a public judgment that every child deserves a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that sexual and emotional needs of adults count for more than the needs of children.”
So I assume Jeff Jacoby is OK with gay-marriage as long as they don’t raise children?
> Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that sexual and emotional needs of adults count for more than the needs of children.
So does divorce and re-marriage when a heterosexual couple has minor-age children. Should we make that illegal? I certainly don’t hear the anti-gay crowd beating the same drum for preventing divorce and re-marriage when minor children are involved. I guess that’s not so “icky”.
> SSA and all its trappings are not good for the individuals involved or society, and ‘marriage’ between two persons of the same sex amounts to a covenant between them to remain unhealed.
I don’t agree with you, but for the sake of discussion I’ll accept your assertion for now. As a freedom loving American, I don’t want anyone to tell me “what’s good for me”, and I especially don’t want “what’s good for me” to be legislated, when I harm no one else.
This discussion is perfectly illustrating my assertion that legislation and the legal system can never answer society’s ills. It is time for the State to leave civil, societal, religious, personal decisions alone. Stop controlling citizen’s decision making ability, and instead hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions that effect others in the society.
Peggy: Blind Faith Dementia (BFD) is a personality disorder with a stong genetic component. This pernicious progressive disease is characterized by delusions of exclusive righteousness and unquestionable moral authority. Those suffering from BFD have been known to see spinning orbs in the sky and speak in unknown tongues while casting judgment on those they perceive to be morally inferior. Though we might not be able to cure these poor souls certainly there must be something we can save for the government locking them up and throwing away the key. Help!
Peggy: Sorry for the typo. Should read “something we can DO save for …..”
“So does divorce and re-marriage when a heterosexual couple has minor-age children.” -Jeff
You are correct, Jeff!! Way to go! Two wrongs don’t make a right. Right?
“I don’t agree with you, but for the sake of discussion I’ll accept your assertion for now.” –Jeff
If you don’t agree with me then that must mean you believe SSA to be a genetic mutation? If it is, why does the homosexual establishment resist all efforts to treat it?
“As a freedom loving American, I don’t want anyone to tell me “what’s good for me”, and I especially don’t want “what’s good for me” to be legislated, when I harm no one else.” — Jeff
So you’re kicking off a statewide campaign to repeal Iowa’s seatbelt laws?
Seatbelt laws amount to a fine for NOT doing something which in no way provides for the common good. We are essentially being penalized for NOT doing something that has no effect on our well being whatsoever.
On the other hand, the entity that is same sex ‘marriage,’ which IS a detriment to society at large in myriad ways has just been CREATED by the Iowa Supreme Court.
I’ll buy a beer for anybody who can find 10 random liberal Democrats on the streets of Iowa City who are against seatbelt laws.
> So you’re kicking off a statewide campaign to repeal Iowa’s seatbelt laws?
I have agreed with you 100% on the seatbelt laws. I don’t like them and I never had.
On a side note, the quality of your arguments has increased dramatically…makes me wonder if this may be a different “Peggy” writing…Either way, I applaud the fact that the arguments you are making are much more sound (not that I agree with all of them, but I respect the grounds you make them on).
> If you don’t agree with me then that must mean you believe SSA to be a genetic mutation?
I reject your premise that it’s *either* a genetic mutation *or* a personality disorder. Using that logic, I could make a similar argument from a religious standpoint: Why did God create them homosexual? If you don’t think God made them that way, then you must believe it’s a choice, right? And if God can’t make someone not homosexual, then who can?
Homosexuality is a characteristic that can’t be changed, like your hair color, your race, your eyes. It is much unlike religion, because you can choose your religion. You can’t change the people God made you sexually attracted to.
If you would you like to test that theory, then I suggest you start having sexual feelings towards your opposite sex.
> If you would you like to test that theory, then I suggest you start having sexual feelings towards your opposite sex.
I mean the same sex.
Peggy, I don’t have a personality disorder. I wasn’t abused growing up. My parents have always been loving and supporting. While my parents were not overly religious and we didn’t often attend church my sister and I did spend several summers at vacation bible school at a Baptist church not far from the house, outside of Derby. I was even baptized. While my religious views have changed significantly over the years, not much else has changed. Today, I’m a happy, hard working Iowan, born and raised in Lucas county and now living in Grinnell. I’ve had the same single partner for 11 years and yes we are talking about getting married. I was born the way I am. I didn’t wake up one morning and look in the mirror and say “Oh boy lets try out being gay.” I don’t have some sort of mental condition or disease and even the American Psychological Association states that homosexuality is not a disorder.
In the months since the Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory DOMA law, has your marriage been threatened? The Supreme Court didn’t create the issue of Marriage Equality in the state of Iowa, the state legislature did that in 1998 when it overstepped it’s constitutional bounds and passed the DOMA law in the first place even though it violates the equal protections clause of the constitution.
“Homosexuality is a characteristic that can’t be changed…” — Jeff
That is patently false, Jeff.
Unfortunately, I can’t continue this exchange now. More later.
> > “Homosexuality is a characteristic that can’t be changed…” — Jeff> >That is patently false, Jeff.
Then the converse must be true, right? Essentially you must be saying that sexual orientation is a choice then. Then why don’t you choose to be gay? It should be just as easy as *choosing* to be straight.
I will be waiting for later to hear your response, because I really can’t fathom it.
Peggy, a person doesn’t change their sexual orientation. They can however be trained to suppress it. Doing so is basically a form of brain washing. With enough stimulation any human can be made to believe something as fact regardless as to how fantastical it actually is.
Pray the gay away!
“Homosexuality is a characteristic that can’t be changed, like your hair color, your race, your eyes” — Jeff
Again, Jeff, this is false. What you’re saying is that there is a gay gene and there simply is not. Do your homework.
Vast,
Is it also brainwashing for an alcoholic to sit in on an AA meeting?
How sad that you are saying that homosexuals can not control their behavior. ANYONE can control or change his behavior. It may be difficult but everyone has the capability to change behaviors.
I’m don’t want to have to decide whether or not homosexuals are “born that way” or not, but how many of us grew up with somebody that you just knew was “gay”? Probably a helluva lot more than any of you are willing to admit. While I may or may not condone it, what two consenting adults do in privacy is none of my damn business!!! The one thing I do have a problem with however is the “in your face” attitude by an obnoxious few that has probably done more to turn away otherwise tolerant folks than anything else. This behaviour isn’t just limited to “gay” people is it? It seems there is getting to be more and more of it exhibited by a few among the religious as well. We need to remember that piety is a sin too!!!
Peggy, Alcoholism is an addiction to a chemical and is not a correlation to homosexuality. I don’t have an addiction.
An alcoholic at some point made a choice to take that first drink and move down that road. I didn’t make any sort of choice.
And Peggy, why should a Homosexual be forced to change the way god created him simply so that he fits into your narrow version of normalcy. Doesn’t god teach us to love ourselves for who we are?
Oh boy… the topic has turned here….
First, I’m accused of wanting a theocracy. Every society has essentially been a theocracy. Most “rules” and laws have been created because of who that society thought God was. Only in our modern times have we begun to believe that right and wrong are somehow inherent in humans.
Second… Jeff, I would love to show you the very strong evidence for the existence of God. I’d be happy to give you my personal e-mail address and we could communicate off of this board if you were interested. Many Christians do have blind faith, but this is not a requirement. There is much evidence that supports our faith for all to see.
Third…. an attraction to someone of the opposite sex is a perversion that may be something you are born with. It isn’t necessarily your fault. However, acting on that attraction is a choice and is something you can control. Someone may be born attracted to 6 year old boys, but it’s not OK for them to act on that attraction. I may be attracted to another woman when I’m married, but it’s not OK to commit adultery. Or why can’t I marry them both? There is a portion of that lifestyle that you may not be able to control (which I still question), but you are responsible for your choices. You cannot always choose your circumstances, but you can choose your reaction them.
Tyler- There is nothing anywhere that makes homosexuality a perversion. It’s a natual element of life. Almost every animal species that forms mated pairs has individuals that are attracted to the same sex.
> Jeff, I would love to show you the very strong evidence for the existence of God.
Well, that’s fine. The burden of proof (after all) is on the believer. When you claim to know God exists, you do need evidence. When you claim to have *faith* he exists, you don’t really need it…because I will except you have faith (because that requires a bit of a willing suspension of disbelief).
> I’d be happy to give you my personal e-mail address and we could communicate off of this board if you were interested.
Well, if the evidence is clear, I’m certain you aren’t the first Christian to find it (this is not meant to be flippant or rude). Please post a few links, or point me to another forum online where we can discuss further. I believe it enhances the discussion when more parties are involved. I’d be happy to discuss on a Christian forum if you are aware of a good one.
>There is much evidence that supports our faith for all to see.
But lots of seeming contradiction and mysticism. I won’t get into all of it now (because I have too many point to be succinct), but I’ll make just one point:
If the universe is 100,000 years old, as Stephen Hawking and Francis Collins (devout believer and head of human genome project) contend, then why did God wait ~96,000 years watching people dying and miserable before even letting anyone know he existed at all.
And when he did decide to reveal himself, why did he do it in the most illiterate and poor part of the world? Why not reveal himself to the Chinese as well who had a written and spoken language, and were clearly the most advanced civilization in the world (at the time). Or, why not reveal himself to everyone at once?
I don’t think God made us in his image, but rather the other way around.
> an attraction to someone of the opposite sex is a perversion that may be something you are born with. It isn’t necessarily your fault.
I could say the same thing about the weakness to believe in religion (I don’t happen to believe that statement though). What type of personality disorder does it take for someone to have to know that they will continue to live after they die? What kind of ego does that require?
If you want to make such a bold claim, you need to prove it. Where is the evidence that it’s a personality disorder?
> Someone may be born attracted to 6 year old boys, but it’s not OK for them to act on that attraction
6 year old boys can’t understand their feelings and most don’t have any sexual feelings whatsoever. So for an adult to have a sexual relationship with someone that isn’t capable of understanding what they are doing, it’s a perversion and a disorder.
Two *adult* women (or men) having sex with each other is not the same thing as an adult raping a child.
I think that telling children they will go to hell if they don’t believe in the Roman Catholic God is one of the most despicable attacks on the morality of a child. They also tell these same 6 year old children that their Christian (but not Catholic) friends will be going to hell as well because they believe in the wrong gospel.
“Tyler- There is nothing anywhere that makes homosexuality a perversion. It’s a natual element of life. Almost every animal species that forms mated pairs has individuals that are attracted to the same sex.” — Vast Variety
One, you’re not an animal. Two, persons of the same sex are physically incapable of mating.
Jeff,
You already admitted that you have no faith so why should Tyler try to prove anything to you? You’ve made up your mind that you will not believe so what’s the point? Explain the historical record of Jesus Christ.
Regarding the adult/child sexual relationship: the argument of the homosexual establishment is that they must be granted by law to do what they feel like doing, even though it’s bad for them and others.
If we’re going to make law based on people needs and desires, you can’t limit this only to adult homosexuals. That would be discriminatory to all the other folks who say they were “born that way,” be it alcoholics, pedophiles, overeaters, hoarders, etc.
> You already admitted that you have no faith so why should Tyler try to prove anything to you?
Because the definition of “Faith” is: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
I don’t have *faith* that God exists, because there is no empirical evidence that Jesus was resurrected or that God ever performed miracles.
If Tyler can point to evidence that I am not aware of, and demonstrate (using evidence — not scripture) I am willing to believe him. In fact, if it is proven that God is real, I’ll stand next to both of you in Church.
That’s the difference between you and me, my mind is not made up. I don’t claim to know if my creator exists or who my creator is. You make that claim, but provide zero evidence. By definition, that means you have *FAITH* that God exists. I do not.
> the argument of the homosexual establishment is that they must be granted by law to do what they feel like doing, even though it’s bad for them and others.
Wrong. Sex between 2 women (or men) causes no harm to anyone else. I would argue it’s more harmful for a married man or woman with children to have a heterosexual affair than it is for 2 homosexuals (with children) in a committed and loving relationship.
In fact there is no harm for anyone when there is a loving and monogamous relationship between 2 adults.
> If we’re going to make law based on people needs and desires, you can’t limit this only to adult homosexuals
We aren’t going to do that. I didn’t state or imply that…you are arguing a point I did not make.
LOGIC TIME
First, POOR PEGGY, in thread after thread on subject after subject, she tells others to “Do their homework” And yet, her comments PROVE over and over again, SHE HAS NOT!
She proves has NOT done a SUFFICIENT amount of research as she is WRONG time after time after time. This when there ARE more than enough facts which the vast majority of open-minded, intelligent and rational people would accept as proof she is WRONG!
She, just like OBOTS and the Clueless Clods of the Loony Left who are anti the Iraq War, simple REFUSE TO LEARN and/or DENY any facts which PROVE them WRONG!
Next, the reason MOST religious people are religious in the first place is because as babies and young children, long before they had a clue about the world, physics, or even common sense, they were Force Fed what ever religious beliefs those who raised them wanted them to believe.
“Give me a child until the age of six, and they are mine forever!”
The Catholic Church
Thankfully, the above is NOT true for ALL PROGRAMMED religious people or many MILLIONS of them would not now be Atheists.
The ONLY reason most religious people are the religion they are is because of WHO raised them. Raised by Christians,
they are Christians, like Moslems & Jews they believe in ONE god. Whereas were they raised by Hindus, they would believe In MANY gods.
NONE of the hundreds of thousands of religions, and NONE of the more than 25,000 gods has ANY more proof it is true than does any other!
The facts are, NOT ONE OF THEM has ANY proof at all! ALL they have is faith, dogma and belief,
The WEAK minded NEED religion while the STRONG minded do not!
FYI. Atheists ARE either the LEADERS,
or among the Leaders, in nearly EVERY field there is.
Neil C… an atheist has to have just as much faith as a religious person because you have to ignore so much of obvious things that simply point to God. Atheism is simply another religion.
Why is it that every society is spiritual in one way or another? Every culture from modern to primitive is full of religion. We are created to have a certain intuition and desire to know who God is.
Neil, you might think you are strong minded, but as strong as you think you are, you’re life is such a fragile thing. Any of us could die in our sleep tonight for numerous reasons that are completely unbeknownst to us. So being “stronger” than another person is really a very relative and insignificant observation.
Jeff… there are many who would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist…. Also, just because God’s methods might not fit our version of logical that in no way does anything to prove that He doesn’t exist. THAT type of situation would indicate that WE have created HIM. I would be skeptical of any god that is bound by our understanding of the world. You also cannot leap to the belief that God doesn’t exist because humans that believe in God have done terrible things in this world. Those types of situations may provide insight into the validity of a particular belief, but say nothing of the existence of God. “Proofs” of God’s existence do not depend on the scriptures. (However, there is A LOT of evidence that validates the Bible as being exactly what it claims to be.)
I’m not aware of any forums, but I’m sure that they’re out there. My e-mail address is tysbrock@yahoo.com. You (or anyone else for that matter) can contact me there if you are interested in looking into some of this evidence.
Peggy, Human beings are in fact Animals, we Mammals.
Yes, Tyler, there is a lot of evidence that proves the Bible is the work of man, edited by man, translated from the original languages they were written in by men who may or may not have actually knew much about the languages used by the men who wrote the scriptures in the first place.
“We aren’t going to do that.” –Jeff
Iowa Supreme Court. April 2009. Same-sex ‘marriage. Ring a bell?
“Peggy, Human beings are in fact Animals, we Mammals.” — Vast Variety
Yes, you are a mammal with a free will and an intellect.
Well, it looks like once again you all have entered into a hopeless situation. There is no way that some of the religious around here are going to be convinced that the gays, atheists, etc. are moral enough or whatever and those that do not believe in Christianity are not going to be brow-beaten into believing either. While I firmly believe in my Christian faith, it is exactly that, based on faith. While I can see those things that have convinced me, I cannot “logically” explain it to anyone else.
But the real issue here is the freedom to hold and express these divergent beliefs. How remarkable and truly unique our Republic is that approx. 220 years ago our Forefathers had the vision and foresight to anticipate many of the issues we deal with today. I fear greatly ANYONE that has the mindset that we need anything “for our own good”, be it healthcare or whatever. The old adage that “A government that is big enough to provide our needs is also big enough to take our rights away” is absolutely true. The right of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness(some equate Property)” must be held sacred at all costs.
The “libertarian” mindset for lack of a better term needs to be re-introduced to some and instilled in all if we are to keep and sustain our Republic as it was conceived and intended. Staying mired in the mud of who is the most moral, who is the better “Christian”, who’s rights are more important, only insures that the GOP will continue to become more marginalized and irrelevant to the debate. There is nothing noble about abdicating the political arena because of compromising your so-called ‘purity of conservatism”, it just means you have given up your seat at the debate. The other side is watching and they are laughing at you!!!
Tyler, it’s a really bad idea to post your e-mail address on ANY website!!! As a victim of identity theft once myself, you really need to stay as anoymous as possible. There are a lot of other people “lurking” around sites like this one besides just those who post here, and you really don’t know who any of us are, either!
Peggy, every Animal on the planet has a free will and an intellect to some degree. Some biologists for example believe that it is quite possible that Humans are not necessarily the most intelligent creatures on the planet. Dolphins for example have intelligence levels that rival and some say even surpass our own.
Peggy – Jeff – Vast – Timmy – This is a very interesting discussion, I assure you. But it is a little off topic, and it is extremely disorganized. If you would like to organize an online debate of this topic, I would be happy to moderate, and I can locate a forum for it as well. We might even be able to get one of the Bloggers here to write something up on it, and actually host the debate on this site. Anyway – My point is that you none of you are successfully communicating with the opposing side because you are all talking past one another. Making points, missing counterpoints, and jumping from topic to topic so rapidly that you never fully discuss any topic. In my mind, you are all destroying your credibility with this petty arguing. If you wish to hold a logical organized debate, than do so, otherwise please. Stop the bickering.
Belike,
Nobody’s forcing you to read our posts.
“There is no way that some of the religious around here are going to be convinced that the gays, atheists, etc. are moral enough or whatever and those that do not believe in Christianity are not going to be brow-beaten into believing either. ” — Timmy
Timmy, to what are you referring? If you were honest, you’d admit that it’s not the “religious around here” who started proselytizing on this thread but the anti-religious. Tyler has merely been defending himself.
Geexe Belike, you’re like a wet blanket spoiling all the fun.
I prefer to be constructive in everything I do. I don’t like arguing just to argue.