Qualifications for President (or any position that requires serving the public) should be limited in both expectation and scope to those things expressly outlined in our governing documents. I think that the Founders went out of their way to ensure that dogmatic belief was NOT a factor when it came to considering someone fit for office. Since religion was rather compulsory in England at the time the Colonies were formed and thriving (both with and without religion) it seems rather obvious that what a person practices as it relates to spiritual matters is a private matter as it directly relates to attending to the business of the people.

But those who practice faith (and here I'll use Christianity as an example) will likely never see this as true. Because scripture teaches people that man is born in a fallen state, that he is without grace unless and until he/she receives the word and message of the risen savior it seems highly unlikely that base voters who consider themselves religious would ever consider electing a non-believing heathen to the position of city dog catcher let alone severing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Such a fact is quite sad in many ways but it is not likely to change; at least not anytime soon. Then again, I never thought I'd see a man as thoroughly unqualified as Barack Obama elected, and so I guess it froze in hell that day, didn't it?

;)

Drew

Just what we'd expect from perfect design, huh? ;)

Now, now, Invictus, you should be sure to watch your step. You seem to be implying that (gasp) there is corruption (or at least bad form from a political standpoint emanating from the left. How DARE you, Sir. Putting away the anti-incredulous sarcasm for a moment, I see NO difference in "Change We Can Believe In" in that so far, there is little change, and even less to believe in. President Obama isn't going to give back the money AIG contributed and neither is Chris Dodd. This is more of the same, more of the same type of rancor and political "look-the-other-way" that we've ALL become too accustomed to having to endure. I guess things will get better and the hole not so deep when we, as the people of this Republic, put down the *$(%(% U##*$(%$ #(#*$% shovel.

The notion that one needs a god to validate or even explain morality is absurd. People knew long ago that murder was "wrong" in that they did not want to be murdered. They knew that stealing was wrong in that they saw the effects of stealing and so, again, did not want to be a victim of theft.

I think it's interesting when people talk about the idea that without being born again, sinners would simply act in a vile and disgusting way. If so, perhaps someone will explain to me please why we are not seeing mobs of atheists roaming the streets, zombie-like in their destruction of everything they come in contact with?

I heard someone say once that the reason they did not rob or steal was directly related to being saved by Jesus. Fine and while I'm not going to beat up on the guy for that belief, when I turned the question around (i.e., why then aren't atheists being picked up and locked up for crimes against humanity on a regular basis) he had no real answer. And that begs the point. We are either totally depraved and incapable of doing one good thing (without God) or we are not so depraved and are capable of doing many good things, despite God.


-D

The OP in this case has brought up some really good scriptural points. One of the things I find incredible about some of the responses is that there is an underlying accusation of "quote mining" or, roughly explained, cherry picking verses to try to make a point. While I don't believe that is what the OP has done, it is worth pointing out that the mere arguments are part of the bigger picture (and in this case, issue) with scripture.

One of the things that has always baffled me as it relates to scripture is why a God who wanted the basic choice (that being a choice between eternal enjoinment (sic) and eternal separation) to be so confusing?

Let's use changing a tire as an example. Let's say that I was charged with writing a manual for everyone to understand, that covered changing a tire. Remember, I've been charged with constructing a manual that is easily understood. This is to ensure that everyone who picks it up is picking up a solid and accurate guide.

But what if instead of writing a simple and straightforward account of how to best change a tire, I made filled the manual with alagory and vague charges. What if I used symbolism, or metaphors? What if when done the manual was potentially confusing enough to require people to have to go to school and/or tire seminary in order to properly follow my directions? How stupid would such a document be?

But that is exactly why I take issue with so many of the scriptures. God, knowing that not everyone who read the "word" was going to have a high I.Q. or a special gift for metaphor deciphering, still choose to allow via proxy a complicated book. The bible is NOT straightforward at all. It talks in riddles and allegory, symbolism and metaphor enough that entire colleges and even doctoral degrees are offered in it's understanding. Why?

Shouldn't the easiest and most unencumbered book ever written actually BE the bible? Shouldn't God have wanted it that way? Shouldn't he have insisted that above all else the book be written so that there is no ambiguity, no guessing, and no misinterpretation?

Entire books are dedicated to certain passages and entire encyclopedias are dedicated to the book of John. Why? Shouldn't truth be as simple and as clear as possible? And shouldn't the all-knowing, creator of everything be able to commission a book that no one could possibly debate? It is one thing for people to debate the authenticity of a holy book but when the debate rages not on the authenticity of the book but on the meaning held within, the smacks of purposeful obfuscation, not clarity of vision or heart.

If I wrote the tire changing book, I would write it as clearly and as concisely as possible. I would leave out words and processes that made people have to dig for the truth.

The Bible's biggest flaw is that it is so completely debatable, so void of consensus. It is that lack of clarity and the endless debates that make me more and more curious as to who in fact the author really was.

Thanks for reading.

DB

Ahhhh, I see we are back to selective outrage. How many times over the years have liberals wished death upon or spewed hate towards conservatives? And how many times did people rush to the First Amendment when such things were said? I think the biggest irony here is that for as many people on this thread who claim to dislike Rush--time was still given to knock him. And to what end, and for what purpose? Because he said something mean? Oh please!

-Drew

I agree, he's not "worried" per se---but to invoke him like he did, even if it was in a negative way, well--that legitimized him as having influence over elected officials. That was really a rookie move by President Obama and one I'll bet his people don't allow him to make again.

-Drew

Actually, a number of people (millions and millions) do listen to Rush and do so on a regular basis. I am not a Rush fan per se because I see the guy as an entertainer first, a politico, second. What I find ironic about the entire saga of his addiction to pain-killers is just how much liberals seem to loathe him for having become addicted. Clearly, he's not the first guy (nor will he be the last) who got addicted to a drug that is, without question, massively addictive.

That he broke the law in the process means that he should be held accountable. Fine, no worries, and no issues.

But what is curious to me is the massive hypocrisy involved here. When former President Clinton committed sexual harassment of a White House Intern (in any other job, he'd have been fired on the spot) the hue and cry from the left was something like:

"Who cares? Does it really have anything to do with his running the country? It's a private matter, and therefore, it should not be something he's beat up for."

OK, so I pose the question---why wasn't Rush's case considered a private matter?

Clinton took an oath.
Rush did not
Clinton's salary was tax payer funded
Rush's is not

I was one of the few "to the right" people during the Clinton saga that thought it was stupid to move to impeach. I thought it was a waste of time and that it would do no good. I felt pretty much the same way about Rush. It's not my business.

There are thousands of left-wing hippie types out there who think drugs should all be made legal! Where were they when Rush's story broke? Why not use him as a figure to point to, in order to make a stronger case?

The truth is, the outrage over Rush's addiction to Oxycontin is only an outrage because of the political views he holds. If Rush was a liberal, they same people who are ticked at him for being an addict, would have been ALL over the news talking about what a good guy he was and how people should leave his personal life alone.

If the left had a talk radio figure that brought in 1/10th of the ratings that Rush brings in, they would have defended him/her to the nth degree.

What makes this all so disgusting is not that Rush did drugs and got caught. It's not even that he got addicted to a powerful narcotic. It's that he's a conservative. That is why he's hated for this.

It must be nice (those of you who think so little of him) to live lives of such perfection. Why, I'm sure that none of you have ever known anyone to get hooked on a pain medicine or any other substance. Must be nice to live in such a world.

Beating up on Rush now, so many years after this has happened is really quite sad. It has not been in the news for many years but still every now and then, there it is.

And clearly all of the name calling and judging of Rush has hurt him. I mean, last June he signed a 400 million dollar contract for the next 8 years. That was not including the 9 figure signing bonus that came with it.

So clearly, he's worried.

-Drew

Congress approved the bailout and guess who controlled the majority in Congress at the time? It seems there is quite literally NOTHING in the world people aren't willing to blame President GWB (he's not a Jr.) for.

-Drew

Well according to the bible, god would not be smiling at all to see all of the world's religions holding hands and getting along. This is because Christianity makes as many claims of exclusivity as any other monotheistic religion. Jews don't believe that Christ was the savior and Muslims don't believe that Jesus was god. The bible makes clear (in verse, after verse, after verse) that false religions (and prophets) would come to led people into error. If you believe that god would accept such a proposal, do you have any biblical verses to back up such a claim? I am really curious because while I think it would be a great thing indeed if people would stop killing each other in the name of dogma (or for reasons that include the lack thereof) I don't see how this is something supported by even a liberal view of Christian doctrine.

-Drew

Ummm, it's not Bush's stimulus plan, it's Obama's plan. I know that there is a massive and at time overwhelming urge to blame the former President Bush for everything that has ever gone wrong, ever--but this plan is purely President Obama's and it is one of the most ridiculous and ill-thought out plans ever.

-Drew

The vote was a smart move by all involved. Politically speaking, Blago was so toxic that anyone who even considered publicly supporting him would have been resigning their own position the next time elections came around. What is interesting here is Blago's defiance. It seems clear that he is not lacking for ego but as I watched some of the news on this I was reminded of two things. The first one was the role made famous by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, when right up to the end he maintained that he had done nothing wrong. The second person Blago reminded me of was the very real Richard Nixon. Nixon, like Blago, was incredibly defiant and clothed himself in a very odd sort of paranoia. Nixon did not think he had done anything wrong either. We know now, beyond any doubt that he was horribly corrupt.

I do feel however that there is something good in this, something every Democrat, Republican, and Independent should feel good about. The vote was a powerful message that there is still a line and that to cross it, well, you'll find yourself politically ruined. A number of us have very different political views and we bicker and argue an sometimes get too worked up over things. But if we can all agree on just one thing, it should be that no matter what letter you place after your name, when you attempt to sell Senate seats, you have to go.

If, as a nation, we dealt with this type of corruption in a swift and meaningful way, things would improve.

I suspect that privately a number of the people who blasted Blago today will drop him a line or a note in the coming months explaining that it was nothing personal. A lot of the indignation today was a little too theatrical for my taste. I don't know what is next for this guy but oh, and again, how the might have fallen.

-Drew

Whoa, wait a moment!! Post after post, after mind-numbing post, here, in this community accused former President Bush of personally killing innocent citizens of Iraq. He was the man in office and he was blamed. And now that beeorganic has brought up the very same point but with President Obama in office, the silence is amusingly deafening. Where is the moral outrage? Where is the "Obama Lied, People Died" mantra? Where is holding President Obama to the same standard that former President Bush was held?

This is not amusing from the standpoint that people were killed. But beeorganic is right ON the mark by bringing this up.

-Drew

Fanta---seriously? You don't find any moral distinction about a response to a threat and the person who initiates it? Following that line of reasoning, do you think it immoral to shoot a person who breaks down your front door while you and your family sleep? If you shoot him in the chest, killing him, are you then on the same moral level? You are a really bright guy, Fanta and I enjoy reading your posts but in the case where violence is used as a response (or in the case of torture) used in a manner to possibly prevent further loss of life/toture I don't think moral relativism is really in play.

No sane and rational person should be comfortable with the idea of torture. I'm not and that is why it's a good topic to debate and discuss. Still, there are times when in order to serve the greater good, morals must be pushed aside. Taking a life is very much a part of that and while again I submit that such a decision is not one that should be taken lightly, I'd like to think that in an effort to rescue a child or spare any human being some degree of suffering, that I'd be willing to do whatever it takes.

-Drew

Fair point and I understand. I think what concerns me here is that radical factions of any religion or dogmatic movement don't much care about who is in the White House. The "moderate" Arab Street might view this as an olive branch of sorts but then again, there is time for that. Our current crisis is domestic and for as much as I heard people whine and complain about staying out of the Middle East, it would appear that President Obama is involving himself in a fairly significant way.

He will no doubt make progress where rational and clear thinking people are present and he's a super smart guy so he should have some success with that. But where he won't have success is with those who hate what the West stands for. And that is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Clinton had no luck with that either--neither would Gore or Kerry had they been elected.

Well, we'll see, I just hope that all of the feel good euphoria surrounding this administration does not lead us to think we can reason with those who view their own martyrdom as both necessary and attractive.

-Drew

Hey, Neville Chamberlain tried something similar back in the late 30's, something about Munich and you know, that worked out well for the world. I understand the need for foreign diplomacy but I guess putting a white female Secretary of State on that job might not go over so well.

I hope that President Obama remembers that he's been elected President of these United States and NOT ambassador to the Middle East. Attempts to smooth over relations isn't in and of itself a bad thing but we'd all be smart to remember that those who practice a fanatical way of life will hate President Obama more, not less. They'll see him as a black man wrapped up in a Western Republic, in essence betraying what "they" view as his roots.

All of that is BS, but in the mind of a fanatic, how does that really matter?

-Drew

Actually, I appreciate it when I e-mail someone and they don't respond back if uninterested. I respect them for not wasting my time and I never take it personally. Now, as far as rude people go--the headline reads--that's life. Just move on. No need to wonder or worry. Consider yourself fortunate that he revealed himself now as opposed to much, much later.

-D

LMAO

Ummmm, so? I mean, it's very interesting but anyone who does not know that Rush is first and foremost, an entertainer, really needs to catch up. If the left had a talk radio program 1/5th as popular as Rush, no one would be calling them "sheep"--they'd just be called enlightened. Rush is a performer. It should make people laugh more than anything.

-Drew

Fanta,

I swear that I'm not trying to be purposefully indifferent to your very well stated points but your answers don't answer the question from a moral standpoint. I don't disagree that the parent in the case I gave is acting out of emotion. In fact, I'll concede that they are acting on little more than pure emotion.

And let us assume and take your point, to say that the child is killed regardless, that the torture does nothing to save the child. Does that fact make the torture morally wrong? Isn't the child pretty much doomed to begin with and if so, how then do we argue that the risk taken (that he will provide information leading to her rescue) isn't worth taking?

-Drew