The problem is not the cost of homes any longer. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that people can no longer afford homes. For most.. it doesn't matter what we do in financing. This program, and any other, will not help housing recover. The problem we face is now almost entirely linked to jobs and not just any jobs but higher paying jobs. People need the income to purchase without a lot of gimmicks. These proposals are, at best, are a temporary fix for a few.
The proposal isn't taking into account the reason people are not buying homes, or any kind of real estate. There are terrific bargains out there but if you don't have a job and your credit is ruined, how are you going to buy anything? Reducing the cost of purchasing doesn't fix the underlying problem. It doesn't offer you a job.
The way out of this depression is through re-building our economic base for all Americans. We have to create good paying jobs that will stabilize the lives of most Americans. In other words, we have to rebuild our manufacturing....we have to rebuild the country. This means that we have to get all those companies that have out sourced jobs and plants to bring them home again. The way that we do that is to have a crisis summit and lay on the table the dire situation we are in and that the burden most be shared by everyone. Sacrifice is the word. We can't provide all the perks these people have enjoyed and save the country.
We are at a time when this country will survive and remain strong, or others will take our place. We need all of the above plus a HUGE endeavor placed properly on education. The truth is we have failed miserably in educating our people. The educational system has to be completely over-hauled by those who realize it is not doing the job. Our educational system is a complete failure.
In short we need good paying jobs and a well educated citizen.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Politics and Religion
George,
You are right, he hasn't changed much, or even attempted the kind of changes we need. The fundamental problems still exist. He has managed to get a few things done but he certainly hasn't brought about a change in the cultural and political attitudes in Washington. He's a politician like all the rest. What we need is someone who is willing to be a patriot, in leu of another word, who is willing to put the country first and the hell with a second term, or politics.
Of course a lot of the blame falls on us because "we the people" have been so damned complacent that we have let it happen. We are the cause of jobs fleeing this country and the corruption in Washington because we haven't been involved. Now in the computer age we realized just how stupid we are. We don't research anything, or even get involved in what is happening in our local government.
People out there in cyper-space have been able to create a world that doesn't exist with false emails and religion. Pass this on and if you do it in 30 seconds you'll be enriched! They pass it on do because that's what God wants. How stupid is that? Or, snopes checked these out and the world will end next week....pass it along....don't check it out yourself pas it along.
If there is to be an Armageddon it's quite clear that we'll bring it on ourselves because we don't think. We seem to forget that we have been given the ability to think, reason and resolved difficult problems and more importantly the nature of the majority of the world's population is based on peace, The basis of most, if not all of the world's religions in love. God is Love..right?
We're all being played and we're dancing to the tune of unscrupulous people. The worst possible combination is the miss-use of religion and politics. If you can join those two together you can control a nation.
Think about it...God wanted to destroy New Orleans because of the sinners. No, God, if you believe in God doesn't want to bring misery and destruction upon his children.
I think the answer is that we need to maybe practice what has been preached to us all of our lives, tolerance and a desire to make peace. That's a religious tenant and common sense. We haven't a lot of time to wake up. It is time to be peace-makers first within this nation and then we can try to export that as much as possible.
We are worshipping the Golden Calf [big time] and our words are designed to destroy not to heal or find common ground. We are the problem and it is important that we listen carefully to those who propose CHANGE and a better life for us all, especially when they deem themselves the chosen ones, the patriots, and use religion to sanctify what they politically proclaim.
Our long lived political parties are corrupted and our newest endeavor is already infiltrated by special interests. Our only chance of bringing about real change and attacking corruption is to open the political discourse to everyone and not just the few chosen. We need to forget our once devotion to a political party and unite in solving our problems, otherwise we are doomed and we will have to face the fact that we are broken beyond saving.
Change must mean the end of corruption and those who brought us to this place need to be imprisoned. Their ill gotten gains stripped from them. We either are devoted to this nation or we are not. We must first serve the American people and protect them. If we are willing to dilute this nation of it's wealth by unscrupulous means for our own benefit then that is treason in my mind.
E. Hatton
You are right, he hasn't changed much, or even attempted the kind of changes we need. The fundamental problems still exist. He has managed to get a few things done but he certainly hasn't brought about a change in the cultural and political attitudes in Washington. He's a politician like all the rest. What we need is someone who is willing to be a patriot, in leu of another word, who is willing to put the country first and the hell with a second term, or politics.
Of course a lot of the blame falls on us because "we the people" have been so damned complacent that we have let it happen. We are the cause of jobs fleeing this country and the corruption in Washington because we haven't been involved. Now in the computer age we realized just how stupid we are. We don't research anything, or even get involved in what is happening in our local government.
People out there in cyper-space have been able to create a world that doesn't exist with false emails and religion. Pass this on and if you do it in 30 seconds you'll be enriched! They pass it on do because that's what God wants. How stupid is that? Or, snopes checked these out and the world will end next week....pass it along....don't check it out yourself pas it along.
If there is to be an Armageddon it's quite clear that we'll bring it on ourselves because we don't think. We seem to forget that we have been given the ability to think, reason and resolved difficult problems and more importantly the nature of the majority of the world's population is based on peace, The basis of most, if not all of the world's religions in love. God is Love..right?
We're all being played and we're dancing to the tune of unscrupulous people. The worst possible combination is the miss-use of religion and politics. If you can join those two together you can control a nation.
Think about it...God wanted to destroy New Orleans because of the sinners. No, God, if you believe in God doesn't want to bring misery and destruction upon his children.
I think the answer is that we need to maybe practice what has been preached to us all of our lives, tolerance and a desire to make peace. That's a religious tenant and common sense. We haven't a lot of time to wake up. It is time to be peace-makers first within this nation and then we can try to export that as much as possible.
We are worshipping the Golden Calf [big time] and our words are designed to destroy not to heal or find common ground. We are the problem and it is important that we listen carefully to those who propose CHANGE and a better life for us all, especially when they deem themselves the chosen ones, the patriots, and use religion to sanctify what they politically proclaim.
Our long lived political parties are corrupted and our newest endeavor is already infiltrated by special interests. Our only chance of bringing about real change and attacking corruption is to open the political discourse to everyone and not just the few chosen. We need to forget our once devotion to a political party and unite in solving our problems, otherwise we are doomed and we will have to face the fact that we are broken beyond saving.
Change must mean the end of corruption and those who brought us to this place need to be imprisoned. Their ill gotten gains stripped from them. We either are devoted to this nation or we are not. We must first serve the American people and protect them. If we are willing to dilute this nation of it's wealth by unscrupulous means for our own benefit then that is treason in my mind.
E. Hatton
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Republicans must now make a Hard Choice
We now have three strong parties, or perhaps only two. It depends on who takes over or the once fiscally responsible Republican Party.
Is there room for the grand old party and the Tea Party under the Republican tent? Not a chance! This November is going to be far more interesting than any of us ever thought.
Is there room for the grand old party and the Tea Party under the Republican tent? Not a chance! This November is going to be far more interesting than any of us ever thought.
Republican and Democratic Ideology
What we are witnessing is an all out battle between the Republicans ideology and Democratic ideology. The ideologies have become more important than examining the results to see if the ideologies work.
The Republican ideology is a belief in hard core capitalism because all business will supposedly prosper under completely free market capitalism, and a social safety net provided by government becomes unnecessary as all citizens benefit from the general prosperity.
The Democrat ideology is not socialist, but is a modified version of capitalism wherein totally free market capitalism needs to be monitored by government to make sure that powerful business interests do not hijack the society as they acquire greater and greater economic power, and become indifferent to the fact that prosperity is not actually shared by all, and that without a government managed social safety net, a great many people will suffer badly.
In short, the differences between Republican and Democratic ideologies is not so much about a belief in capitalism, but a belief in the need for a social safety net to protect citizens when capitalism results in a suffering ... and sometimes exploited ... economic underclass. Argue as you wish about specific policy proposals on how to best make capitalism work, the bottom line is that the argument is less about capitalism and more about government providing the social safety net.
The Republicans hate the social safety net believing it is not necessary and is an unfair forced reallocation of hard earned profits. The Democrats believe the social safety net is a compassionate necessity because uncontrolled capitalism generally results in the rich and powerful gathering more and more power and wealth while remaining indifferent to the grief of those who are not able to participate in the prosperity.
Dr. Krugman, in his editorial "Things Could Be Worse", speaks from the Democrat point of view. When comparing the US to Japan, he is merely reiterating his belief that pursuing the Republican ideology, especially at this moment of economic crisis when it might not be wise to adhere to hard core ideologies, could be a mistake that would lead the US into a future that is far worse than what befell Japan.
It is a shame that Republicans and some Democrats can be so hard wired to their ideologies that they can not let go of them in order to seek some compromise middle road based on the facts on the ground rather blindly adhering to ideological formulas. But, such is politics and the stubbornness of human nature. It is good that Dr. Krugman points out the risks present in this exceptional time of economic crisis, and suggests that wiser heads hopefully might prevail.
G.Ryan
The Republican ideology is a belief in hard core capitalism because all business will supposedly prosper under completely free market capitalism, and a social safety net provided by government becomes unnecessary as all citizens benefit from the general prosperity.
The Democrat ideology is not socialist, but is a modified version of capitalism wherein totally free market capitalism needs to be monitored by government to make sure that powerful business interests do not hijack the society as they acquire greater and greater economic power, and become indifferent to the fact that prosperity is not actually shared by all, and that without a government managed social safety net, a great many people will suffer badly.
In short, the differences between Republican and Democratic ideologies is not so much about a belief in capitalism, but a belief in the need for a social safety net to protect citizens when capitalism results in a suffering ... and sometimes exploited ... economic underclass. Argue as you wish about specific policy proposals on how to best make capitalism work, the bottom line is that the argument is less about capitalism and more about government providing the social safety net.
The Republicans hate the social safety net believing it is not necessary and is an unfair forced reallocation of hard earned profits. The Democrats believe the social safety net is a compassionate necessity because uncontrolled capitalism generally results in the rich and powerful gathering more and more power and wealth while remaining indifferent to the grief of those who are not able to participate in the prosperity.
Dr. Krugman, in his editorial "Things Could Be Worse", speaks from the Democrat point of view. When comparing the US to Japan, he is merely reiterating his belief that pursuing the Republican ideology, especially at this moment of economic crisis when it might not be wise to adhere to hard core ideologies, could be a mistake that would lead the US into a future that is far worse than what befell Japan.
It is a shame that Republicans and some Democrats can be so hard wired to their ideologies that they can not let go of them in order to seek some compromise middle road based on the facts on the ground rather blindly adhering to ideological formulas. But, such is politics and the stubbornness of human nature. It is good that Dr. Krugman points out the risks present in this exceptional time of economic crisis, and suggests that wiser heads hopefully might prevail.
G.Ryan
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thoughts
"These are times that trouble men's souls" - Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Although those familiar words were written in 1776, they have meaningful application in contemporary America as she struggles on the domestic and international scenes. Our nation suffers from an un-transparent, inexperienced president and an impotent Congress. As a result of their collective domestic and foreign failures, America's future, quite literally, swings in the wind.
These times do not offer us the luxury of continuing ideological battles between the two political parties at the peril of our national interests. These are times that demand intense planning, discussion and action. For too long, we have listened to the extreme conservatives who demanded less government when they should have been about the business of fixing the government that we have. For too long, we have listened to the extreme liberals who demanded that government fix everything when they, too, should have been about the business of fixing government.
The voting public must insist that these two political groups abide by higher standards of conduct. These times are much too turbulent, and the consequences too dire to allow for business as usual. The Republicans and Democrats must be told by the American people to reign in their extremist rhetoric and let them know that this November 2010 election is much too important for childish, schoolyard antics. Hopefully, the winning candidates will be the ones who take the high road - the ones who earn our votes, rather than the ones who engage in sleaze campaigning.
The stakes are too high. The consequences of inaction and triviality are frighteningly unimaginable. These are, for sure, critical times which try the souls of men and women - times which can make America victorious in its struggle or ensure its further decline. I would like to have every confidence that we will do the former ... but as a realist, not a pessimist, I do not.
G. Ryan
Although those familiar words were written in 1776, they have meaningful application in contemporary America as she struggles on the domestic and international scenes. Our nation suffers from an un-transparent, inexperienced president and an impotent Congress. As a result of their collective domestic and foreign failures, America's future, quite literally, swings in the wind.
These times do not offer us the luxury of continuing ideological battles between the two political parties at the peril of our national interests. These are times that demand intense planning, discussion and action. For too long, we have listened to the extreme conservatives who demanded less government when they should have been about the business of fixing the government that we have. For too long, we have listened to the extreme liberals who demanded that government fix everything when they, too, should have been about the business of fixing government.
The voting public must insist that these two political groups abide by higher standards of conduct. These times are much too turbulent, and the consequences too dire to allow for business as usual. The Republicans and Democrats must be told by the American people to reign in their extremist rhetoric and let them know that this November 2010 election is much too important for childish, schoolyard antics. Hopefully, the winning candidates will be the ones who take the high road - the ones who earn our votes, rather than the ones who engage in sleaze campaigning.
The stakes are too high. The consequences of inaction and triviality are frighteningly unimaginable. These are, for sure, critical times which try the souls of men and women - times which can make America victorious in its struggle or ensure its further decline. I would like to have every confidence that we will do the former ... but as a realist, not a pessimist, I do not.
G. Ryan
Friday, September 3, 2010
Iraq; Is it really over?
You might have thought the Iraq war was over after listening to President Obama on Tuesday.
Eager to unload the albatross he inherited, Obama proclaimed that the American combat mission had ended. "We have met our responsibility, ... Now it is time to turn the page."
Would that it were so easy. The Iraq struggle has not yet ended; it is only entering a new phase. We will be ensnared in the legacy of this war long after our combat troops leave.
Indeed, there was an oddly static quality to Obama's remarks on the Iraq war. He didn't talk of the past seven years of struggle or the flawed Bush administration policies that led to Iraq's near-implosion.
As for the future, he touched on plans for "long-term partnership" with Iraq and greater diplomatic involvement. But he did not explain what this will mean or promote the idea to the public.
The president knows Americans are weary of the Iraq war; polls show they don't think it was worth fighting. So his emphasis was on moving on.
I can understand Obama's reluctance to reopen partisan wounds over the Iraq issue; to the contrary, he stressed he had phoned President George W. Bush on the day of the speech, and repeatedly praised the service of our troops. But the past seven years of war can't be airbrushed away, even if many Americans would like that. We have to digest the meaning of this tragic encounter, which will continue to haunt us and Iraqis as well.
Ironically, some Republicans criticized Obama for not giving Bush credit for the troop surge that helped halt Iraq's sectarian fighting. But Obama could not have invoked the surge without revisiting the errors that led to the war's inception. Nor can the surge obscure the Bush White House's arrogant mismanagement of the postwar period, which caused hideous suffering for Iraqis and loss of life for our troops.
Yes, the surge - or, more correctly, the strategy of General David Petraeus and key officers - helped stop Iraq's civil war. But the Bush team's predictions about the war's strategic benefits for us and the region proved dangerously wrong.
Bush administration officials insisted that Saddam Hussein's fall would usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. Iran's theocracy would be the next domino to fall, and Arab-Israeli peace would follow.
Instead, postwar chaos in Iraq soiled democracy's name in the region. Autocracy remains triumphant. Iraq is a democracy in name, yet five months after elections, its sectarian factions can't form a government.
Meantime, the elimination of Saddam Hussein left Iran the strongest power in the region, and its influence has grown steadily over the past seven years. The Mideast peace process froze, and it is being revived - barely - only this week.
Given U.S. failures in postwar Iraq, American competence and capacity are in question throughout the Middle East and beyond. Our influence in this critical region is waning, which hurts our ability to promote Mideast peace talks and deal with Iran.
In Iraq, we spent ... and wasted ... billions, yet Iraqi infrastructure remains broken. The most visible symptom of failure: Electricity is delivered only a few hours a day as temperatures hit 120 degrees.
Although violence is down, Iraq's educated middle class has been decimated. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded, and millions more are still refugees. Iraqi women were once the most advanced in the region, but their position has grown much worse.
The American impulse, as reflected in Obama's speech, will be to move on, especially given our own economic problems and our commitment in Afghanistan. Yet - although Iraq is very much Bush's war, and its tragedies his responsibility - Obama can't turn the page. The next phase of Iraq's struggle will happen on his watch.
Iraq's future is uncertain, but we can still play an important role there, devoid of past illusions. We should commit wholeheartedly to the long-term civilian partnership we've signed on to, but which Congress may be reluctant to fund. If Iraqis want us to keep some troops there after 2011, we should do so to prevent a power vacuum that others will fill.
We have a strategic interest in ensuring Iraq doesn't sink back into chaos or dictatorship. But we also have a moral duty. We owe it to 4,400 dead U.S. troops and untold thousands of slain Iraqis to keep trying to make the country whole.
G. Ryan
Eager to unload the albatross he inherited, Obama proclaimed that the American combat mission had ended. "We have met our responsibility, ... Now it is time to turn the page."
Would that it were so easy. The Iraq struggle has not yet ended; it is only entering a new phase. We will be ensnared in the legacy of this war long after our combat troops leave.
Indeed, there was an oddly static quality to Obama's remarks on the Iraq war. He didn't talk of the past seven years of struggle or the flawed Bush administration policies that led to Iraq's near-implosion.
As for the future, he touched on plans for "long-term partnership" with Iraq and greater diplomatic involvement. But he did not explain what this will mean or promote the idea to the public.
The president knows Americans are weary of the Iraq war; polls show they don't think it was worth fighting. So his emphasis was on moving on.
I can understand Obama's reluctance to reopen partisan wounds over the Iraq issue; to the contrary, he stressed he had phoned President George W. Bush on the day of the speech, and repeatedly praised the service of our troops. But the past seven years of war can't be airbrushed away, even if many Americans would like that. We have to digest the meaning of this tragic encounter, which will continue to haunt us and Iraqis as well.
Ironically, some Republicans criticized Obama for not giving Bush credit for the troop surge that helped halt Iraq's sectarian fighting. But Obama could not have invoked the surge without revisiting the errors that led to the war's inception. Nor can the surge obscure the Bush White House's arrogant mismanagement of the postwar period, which caused hideous suffering for Iraqis and loss of life for our troops.
Yes, the surge - or, more correctly, the strategy of General David Petraeus and key officers - helped stop Iraq's civil war. But the Bush team's predictions about the war's strategic benefits for us and the region proved dangerously wrong.
Bush administration officials insisted that Saddam Hussein's fall would usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. Iran's theocracy would be the next domino to fall, and Arab-Israeli peace would follow.
Instead, postwar chaos in Iraq soiled democracy's name in the region. Autocracy remains triumphant. Iraq is a democracy in name, yet five months after elections, its sectarian factions can't form a government.
Meantime, the elimination of Saddam Hussein left Iran the strongest power in the region, and its influence has grown steadily over the past seven years. The Mideast peace process froze, and it is being revived - barely - only this week.
Given U.S. failures in postwar Iraq, American competence and capacity are in question throughout the Middle East and beyond. Our influence in this critical region is waning, which hurts our ability to promote Mideast peace talks and deal with Iran.
In Iraq, we spent ... and wasted ... billions, yet Iraqi infrastructure remains broken. The most visible symptom of failure: Electricity is delivered only a few hours a day as temperatures hit 120 degrees.
Although violence is down, Iraq's educated middle class has been decimated. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded, and millions more are still refugees. Iraqi women were once the most advanced in the region, but their position has grown much worse.
The American impulse, as reflected in Obama's speech, will be to move on, especially given our own economic problems and our commitment in Afghanistan. Yet - although Iraq is very much Bush's war, and its tragedies his responsibility - Obama can't turn the page. The next phase of Iraq's struggle will happen on his watch.
Iraq's future is uncertain, but we can still play an important role there, devoid of past illusions. We should commit wholeheartedly to the long-term civilian partnership we've signed on to, but which Congress may be reluctant to fund. If Iraqis want us to keep some troops there after 2011, we should do so to prevent a power vacuum that others will fill.
We have a strategic interest in ensuring Iraq doesn't sink back into chaos or dictatorship. But we also have a moral duty. We owe it to 4,400 dead U.S. troops and untold thousands of slain Iraqis to keep trying to make the country whole.
G. Ryan
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Should Obama's Religion Matter?
Should Barack Obama's religion matter as U. S. President?
From the onset of his bid for President, Barack Obama was inundated with questions about his faith. The controversial sermons of President Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the claims that Obama is a Muslim, at times, gained more attention and public scrutiny than his political ideology.
While Obama’s religion was a hot-button topic during the 2008 presidential campaign, one must wonder if his religious preference should matter now that he is President? To find the answer to this question, one must examine the laws and ideas on which the United States was founded.
The Requirements to Be a U.S. President: The Constitution of the United States only provides three specific requirements for someone to be President. One must be a natural-born U.S. citizen, either born in the U.S., or born abroad to parents who are both U.S. citizens. Also, one must be thirty-five years of age. Lastly, one must be a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years. Among these tenants there is no mention of a religious qualification.
The First Amendment: This constitutional amendment establishes two key points with regard to whether a President’s religious preference should matter.
First, the “Establishment Clause,” which prevents the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another.
Second, the “Free Exercise Clause” which states that the government cannot infringe upon anyone’s right to believe in a religion. The government also cannot impede on one’s free practice of a religion, so long as its practices do not violate any other laws.
Article VI, Section III: In addition to the presidential requirements, and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution delves further into the topic of religion in politics. It states that no religious test will ever be used as a means of qualifying someone to hold a political office in the U.S.
Separation of Church and State: Many of the United States’ founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wrote on the the idea of the separation of church and state. They called for a complete separation, wall, or line placed between religion and the government of the United States.
What Does This Mean?
Based on the founding principles of the United States and more importantly, its laws, the question as to whether Barack Obama’s religion should matter as President can be summed up in a word: NO. The Framers of the Constitution were very clear that religion and politics should not intermingle. The Federal Government does not require a President to have a particular religion, nor can it require any religious test as a requirement for office. The Constitution of the United States is also clear that individuals have freedom of religion, and that they have the freedom to practice their religion, so long as that practice does not break any other laws.
Many argue that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, therefore, the Commander in Chief should be a Christian. However, the Framers intentionally excluded religious requirements. The United States is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy, so requiring a President to practice a particular faith would mean imposing certain beliefs on others. These beliefs would also be reflected in laws and executive decisions, creating bias, and disaffecting those without the same beliefs.
President Barack Obama is a self-professed Christian, but based on the laws and principles of the United States, it would not matter if he was a Muslim, Jew, or worshiped blades of grass. The President of the United States is elected by the people, to represent the people. He should be objective and unbiased in all of his decisions, and his religious preference should matter about as much as his choice of Oval Office carpet.
Just prior to the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama answered questions from a group of Evangelicals (January 23, 2008). One of the questions asked and answered was:
"You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?"
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation."
Don, unless someone of high repute can document in some form or fashion that Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" and can prove that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim' "fits", in this instance anyway, the only legitimate criticism we can lay on him is that he is the most liberal Democrat to ever hold the hold of U.S. President.
The main problem, as I see it, is one of religious fatalism, ignorance, and narrow mindedness on the part of too many Christian zealots.
To use a well-worn quote that applies to both Barack Obama and to this issue: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Alexander Hamilton said: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right."
Don, if we are to judge President Obama, then we must judge him on his actions, not his intentions; on his deeds, not on his words.
by G. Ryan
From the onset of his bid for President, Barack Obama was inundated with questions about his faith. The controversial sermons of President Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the claims that Obama is a Muslim, at times, gained more attention and public scrutiny than his political ideology.
While Obama’s religion was a hot-button topic during the 2008 presidential campaign, one must wonder if his religious preference should matter now that he is President? To find the answer to this question, one must examine the laws and ideas on which the United States was founded.
The Requirements to Be a U.S. President: The Constitution of the United States only provides three specific requirements for someone to be President. One must be a natural-born U.S. citizen, either born in the U.S., or born abroad to parents who are both U.S. citizens. Also, one must be thirty-five years of age. Lastly, one must be a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years. Among these tenants there is no mention of a religious qualification.
The First Amendment: This constitutional amendment establishes two key points with regard to whether a President’s religious preference should matter.
First, the “Establishment Clause,” which prevents the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another.
Second, the “Free Exercise Clause” which states that the government cannot infringe upon anyone’s right to believe in a religion. The government also cannot impede on one’s free practice of a religion, so long as its practices do not violate any other laws.
Article VI, Section III: In addition to the presidential requirements, and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution delves further into the topic of religion in politics. It states that no religious test will ever be used as a means of qualifying someone to hold a political office in the U.S.
Separation of Church and State: Many of the United States’ founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wrote on the the idea of the separation of church and state. They called for a complete separation, wall, or line placed between religion and the government of the United States.
What Does This Mean?
Based on the founding principles of the United States and more importantly, its laws, the question as to whether Barack Obama’s religion should matter as President can be summed up in a word: NO. The Framers of the Constitution were very clear that religion and politics should not intermingle. The Federal Government does not require a President to have a particular religion, nor can it require any religious test as a requirement for office. The Constitution of the United States is also clear that individuals have freedom of religion, and that they have the freedom to practice their religion, so long as that practice does not break any other laws.
Many argue that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, therefore, the Commander in Chief should be a Christian. However, the Framers intentionally excluded religious requirements. The United States is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy, so requiring a President to practice a particular faith would mean imposing certain beliefs on others. These beliefs would also be reflected in laws and executive decisions, creating bias, and disaffecting those without the same beliefs.
President Barack Obama is a self-professed Christian, but based on the laws and principles of the United States, it would not matter if he was a Muslim, Jew, or worshiped blades of grass. The President of the United States is elected by the people, to represent the people. He should be objective and unbiased in all of his decisions, and his religious preference should matter about as much as his choice of Oval Office carpet.
Just prior to the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama answered questions from a group of Evangelicals (January 23, 2008). One of the questions asked and answered was:
"You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?"
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation."
Don, unless someone of high repute can document in some form or fashion that Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" and can prove that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim' "fits", in this instance anyway, the only legitimate criticism we can lay on him is that he is the most liberal Democrat to ever hold the hold of U.S. President.
The main problem, as I see it, is one of religious fatalism, ignorance, and narrow mindedness on the part of too many Christian zealots.
To use a well-worn quote that applies to both Barack Obama and to this issue: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Alexander Hamilton said: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right."
Don, if we are to judge President Obama, then we must judge him on his actions, not his intentions; on his deeds, not on his words.
by G. Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
