So you are offended that the evangelical Christians led the movement to push their “delusion” in the mid-1800s that slavery was unjust and should be abolished? That women should have full rights of citizenship? That alcohol should be banned?

OK, you (as I do, as the nation does) probably believe the last one was wrong. But most people think the other two were right. Yet all of those things were based firmly in their religious beliefs, and they pushed them to become law. And we’re all better off for it.

Same thing with Martin Luther King Jr. and many other civil rights leaders in the middle of the 20th century, including my brother-in-law’s father-in-law, who was a white chaplain at a black college in Mississippi, and has scars on his face today because he pushed to codify his “delusional beliefs” into law, about what the Bible had to say about segregation and discrimination.

No serious person believes that religious people should not try to codify their beliefs into law, because of — if nothing else — the examples I just gave. The only question is whether enough people agree with you, for religious, or non-religious, reasons. Some people think you should have to justify your beliefs in non-religious terms, but the Constitution certainly doesn’t require it … but it’s a good idea, and certainly abolition, suffrage, desegregation, and the pro-life views can all be — and are — justified without using religion.

(For example: slavery is wrong because it denies the right to liberty guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Abortion is wrong because it denies the right to life guaranteed in the same. That life begins shortly after conception, at least by the time of implantation [though really before that], is biologically undeniable. Etc.)

Obviously, you likely agree with the first three, and disagree with the fourth. Fine. Many people disagreed with each of the first three, too; doesn’t mean they were right. Conceptually, in terms of the relationship of religion and government, pro-lifers pushing for legal abolition of abortion is no different than evangelicals pushing for the abolition of slavery.

I don’t believe you. People who want to hear real debate do not dismiss the principled arguments of their opponents, especially when those arguments are derived from the founding principles of the nation. People who want to hear real debate do not prejudge arguments of their opponents as “blather,” “nonsense,” “foolish,” “short sighted,” “ignorant,” and so on.

Oh right, but you say I “can’t think for myself.” I defy you to demonstrate it. Good luck with that.

“I say, if you all feel so strongly, just opt out and give your share of public health care insurance to someone else.”

As long as I don’t have to PAY for it, fine.

“You can always continue to get hosed by the insurance companies if that’s your thing.”

I get excellent health care paid for by my health insurance company.

“You know health care is not a big issue because it’s so good in this country”

Actually, no, health care in this country — for people who have insurance, which is overwhelmingly most of the country — is among the best, if not the best, in the world. It’s got problems, and needs improvement, but this is not driven by the low quality of health care, but by the fact that many people do not GET health care. When they DO get health care, it’s excellent quality.

I apologize for injecting facts into this debate you don’t want to have.

Why do people who want government run health care also have a problem with what our forefathers once said about government and why it should be limited, like if they don’t agree with our forefathers who do they agree with? and why won’t they admit about who they do agree with? and for why?

Maybe some of me good government run health care friends advocates can explain these conundrums!

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2siIWB0J4&feature=related

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeCAeACmJE

Now don’t tell me to shut up!

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

So you’re for a public health insurance option so the debts of the living stand a better chance of being retired?

Also, in Madison’s day,
the debts were all between American rebels and their French financiers.
So to be indebted to a foreign nation actually allowed for the success of The Revolution.
Maybe that isn’t mentioned in your copy of The Constitution?

Since you liked TJ so much, here’s one of his neighbors you may have heard of;

All that seems indispensible in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former.
James Madison

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

No thanks for voting to coerce over 10 million Americans into buying something we don’t want.

No thanks for voting for a plan that in its first FULL 10 years of operation will cost over $2.5 TRILLION, and then rise after that.

No thanks for voting for a bill that makes patients more vulnerable because education of doctors and medical staff will even more based on affirmative action that merit.

No thanks for setting the stage for illegal aliens to be legitimized and then receive taxpayer funded health care, futher raising the cost.

But thank you for giving your political opposition more reason to campaign against you.

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!

I’s glad he’s not for unlimited government, for sure!

Here’s the big question is leaving a huge debt to future generations to pay for our needs today, is that right?

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. TJ

AFY!!thesheepdog!!!