Mourdock Down Double Digits in New Poll

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm not interested in discussing any religion in theory or in practice, unless that practice makes it way into legislation. Your right to swing your arm ends at the point where your fist contacts my nose. I don't mind your offer to sell me music, although you are right that I'm not buying. It's when you try to force me to listen to it that we have an issue.

Is it really that hard to understand? The founding fathers understood it quite well:

Your mistake is in believing that because you don't hold certain morale values, your neighbors are prohibited from expressing and lobbying for their morale values. The only "separation" possible between "Church and State" is the establishment of an "authorized church" (or "State Religion"). Community morale standards, which almost universally evolve from religious beliefs, were always intended to be the glue that held the Republic together.

If you look at the principles embodied in most major religions (not the practices carried out by their followers) you will find many similarities in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" as they relate to how we are to treat one another. English Common Law - the basis of our legal system - is rooted in those beliefs and in the common practices which made them acceptable to most of the population. The forcible separation of "religion" from public discourse since the 1960s has allowed us to get to the point where we don't any longer understand how our governmental system works; we no longer have a shared set of moral values as a standard by which to judge behavior; and we've lost the moral compass and shared values which made us a "Melting Pot" instead of a nation of Balkanized special interests.

 

[Solitaire]

Your mistake is in believing that because you don't hold certain morale values, your neighbors are prohibited from expressing and lobbying for their morale values. The only "separation" possible between "Church and State" is the establishment of an "authorized church" (or "State Religion"). Community morale standards, which almost universally evolve from religious beliefs, were always intended to be the glue that held the Republic together.

If you look at the principles embodied in most major religions (not the practices carried out by their followers) you will find many similarities in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" as they relate to how we are to treat one another. English Common Law - the basis of our legal system - is rooted in those beliefs and in the common practices which made them acceptable to most of the population. The forcible separation of "religion" from public discourse since the 1960s has allowed us to get to the point where we don't any longer understand how our governmental system works; we no longer have a shared set of moral values as a standard by which to judge behavior; and we've lost the moral compass and shared values which made us a "Melting Pot" instead of a nation of Balkanized special interests.

Religion is not a moral value. Religion is the belief in some kind of deity and an adherence to a set of rules that may or may not be morally sound. Laws and morals predate Christianity. Our laws reflect whatever morals and values that we choose as a society, and if I'm not mistaken, several things that you would consider morally wrong because of your religion are still illegal (ie: considered wrong by our society), thus there is no lack of a set of shared values.

You have a complete misunderstanding of what the separation of church and state really meant to the founding fathers. But don't take my word for it. Let Jefferson speak to you:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


My apologies in advance for quoting such an obvious liberal heathen.

 

[Trooper]

Religion is not a moral value. Religion is the belief in some kind of deity and an adherence to a set of rules that may or may not be morally sound. Laws and morals predate Christianity. Our laws reflect whatever morals and values that we choose as a society, and if I'm not mistaken, several things that you would consider morally wrong because of your religion are still illegal (ie: considered wrong by our society), thus there is no lack of a set of shared values.

You have a complete misunderstanding of what the separation of church and state really meant to the founding fathers. But don't take my word for it. Let Jefferson speak to you:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


My apologies in advance for quoting such an obvious liberal heathen.

Jefferson did not write the constitution, Madison and Hamilton did. Jefferson was exiled to France (made ambassador) so as to get him out of the country in order to prevent him from having a part in the constitution. Most of the founders turned against him due to his beliefs. Plus he was not a Freemason. Adams hated his guts.

Jefferson created the democrat party, the idea of using patronage to gain power and the concept of the rich using the common man as political tools. Much of the political corruption can be traced right back to Jefferson.

There is good reason to believe that Jefferson did not want a constitution, a federal republic. He seems to have been an anti federalist who wanted a confederacy rather than a republic.

And one can not seperate their faith (which is something different than mere religion) from their political beliefs. Your hatred of G-D colors all that you believe just as my faith in G-D colors my beliefs. And whether you like it or not, we are seeing a growth in the numbers of those who are evangelical. Currently they number about 60 million. Even Andy Horning shares many of the same beliefs that Mourdock does.

That said, if Donnelly wins do not complain here about how leftwing he is.

 

[CarmelHP]

That said, if Donnelly wins do not complain here about how leftwing he is.

I don't think Solitaire has any problem with left-wingers.

 

[Solitaire]

And one can not seperate their faith (which is something different than mere religion) from their political beliefs. Your hatred of G-D colors all that you believe just as my faith in G-D colors my beliefs. And whether you like it or not, we are seeing a growth in the numbers of those who are evangelical. Currently they number about 60 million. Even Andy Horning shares many of the same beliefs that Mourdock does.

I can hardly hate something that I do not believe exists, although I am just guessing what you are talking about with your little "G-D" word play, whatever that means. (I suppose omnipotent beings can be fooled by cute spelling tricks, and can't figure out context in written language.)

As I addressed earlier, 10 gazillion evangelicals in a red state doesn't affect the outcome of the state's impact on the electoral college. We will see that quite clearly on Tuesday. Let us also witness the huge impact of evangelicals as Democrats continue as the majority party in the Senate after Tuesday's election.

Perhaps in that horrible situation where Obama is reelected and the Senate continues with its Democrat majority, it will be what god intended. Right, Mourdock?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I can hardly hate something that I do not believe exists, although I am just guessing what you are talking about with your little "G-D" word play, whatever that means. (I suppose omnipotent beings can be fooled by cute spelling tricks, and can't figure out context in written language.)

As I addressed earlier, 10 gazillion evangelicals in a red state doesn't affect the outcome of the state's impact on the electoral college. We will see that quite clearly on Tuesday. Let us also witness the huge impact of evangelicals as Democrats continue as the majority party after Tuesday's election.

Perhaps in that horrible situation where Obama is reelected and the Senate continues with its Democrat majority, it will be what god intended. Right, Mourdock?

I would say that this is exactly correct, that a people corrupt enough to elect that piece of s**t would be left with precisely the leader that they (the majority) deserve.

 

[Solitaire]

I don't think Solitaire has any problem with left-wingers.

As an independent, I don't have any problem with reason or rationality from either side of the aisle. I don't like extremism from either side, either. I don't need any group, D, R or L, to tell me that I have to adopt each talking point of their platform. Each issue is different to me, and I will judge each based on my life experience, education and research of the issue, if I consider the issue of importance. I will then vote accordingly, knowing full well that NO candidate will ever agree 100% with what I believe, due in large part to party politics.

In the grand scheme of things, 1 vote is not all that much power, but it is mine, and I will do what I want with it regardless of what anybody thinks.

 

[Solitaire]

I would say that this is exactly correct, that a people corrupt enough to elect that piece of s**t would be left with precisely the leader that they (the majority) deserve.

Well Dave, look at it this way. When Obama comes for our guns , the tree of liberty can be refreshed again with the blood of patriots and tyrants, and we'll be back to the glory days of the late 1700's. You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette, right? Why prolong the misery with Romney? Let's get this party started, and the internet patriots who dream of repelling brown shirt swat teams from the front porches can either put up or shut up.

 

[Solitaire]

Jefferson did not write the constitution, Madison and Hamilton did. Jefferson was exiled to France (made ambassador) so as to get him out of the country in order to prevent him from having a part in the constitution. Most of the founders turned against him due to his beliefs. Plus he was not a Freemason. Adams hated his guts.

Jefferson created the democrat party, the idea of using patronage to gain power and the concept of the rich using the common man as political tools. Much of the political corruption can be traced right back to Jefferson.

Ok, let's ignore Jefferson, since despite his indisputable role in the founding of this country, YOU don't agree with his views. What did Adams, Madison and Hamilton have to say about religion and government?

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. - Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [attempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. - James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect." - James Madison, Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? - John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

Alexander Hamilton? Ok, I'll give you that one. He was a Christian, but not the type you would likely recognize, and being born out of wedlock and having committed adultery in an extra-marital affair before leaving office in 1792, not one that you would approve of as a g-d fearing evangelical, I'm sure.

Although if you can set aside your faith long enough to vote for Romney, who knows what you are capable of?

 

[CTS]

Kind of off-topic here, but since it's being discussed, I haven't advertised the fact but in addition to my day job I'm also an assistant pastor at a very Evangelical church and am rather opinionated on the subject of church/state separation.

My belief is that as few things as humanly possible should be "illegal" in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter). When your actions are going to cause harm to another (not just a little but a lot) then I'm fine with society curtailing that behavior...murder should be illegal, prostitution should not. Now that's not saying I would ever choose to visit a brothel, but until it can be pointed out to me how that activity has a serious effect on me or another when someone else chooses to engage in it, I can't see making it illegal. There might be a good case for making it illegal, but I think you get my point. "Christians" should not be seeking to legislate their morality on others any more than "Muslims" should. I absolutely believe that lots of things in society are "wrong", like prostitution, but it's my job to convince others to not engage in it, not to make the state do my job for me. Not to mention that when they do it, it really doesn't do a lot to further the Christian cause, in fact I believe solidly that it harms it. The atheist uprising didn't come out of nowhere, Christians helped create it by attempting to force their beliefs instead of using persuasion.

If people are living a lifestyle that the church doesn't agree with, it's not a failure of the state, it's a failure of the church. With regard to this country specifically early in the last century the church decided that if people weren't going to choose what they considered a Christian lifestyle, the would legislate them into it. Instead, if you think your ideas and beliefs are good ones everyone can benefit from, convince them to live that way of their own volition by making a compelling argument. Most Christians believe that God gave us free will, so I don't understand why so many of them are eager to take it away from their fellow man. Do you think you know better than God?

Now that said, on the flip side, the idea that politicians shouldn't have the same freedom to express their religious views that the rest of us enjoy is infuriating. Putting up with the voice you don't care for is required to ensure that yours has the opportunity to be heard as well.

 

[Solitaire]

Kind of off-topic here, but since it's being discussed, I haven't advertised the fact but in addition to my day job I'm also an assistant pastor at a very Evangelical church and am rather opinionated on the subject of church/state separation.

My belief is that as few things as humanly possible should be "illegal" in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter). When your actions are going to cause harm to another (not just a little but a lot) then I'm fine with society curtailing that behavior...murder should be illegal, prostitution should not. Now that's not saying I would ever choose to visit a brothel, but until it can be pointed out to me how that activity has a serious effect on me or another when someone else chooses to engage in it, I can't see making it illegal. There might be a good case for making it illegal, but I think you get my point. "Christians" should not be seeking to legislate their morality on others any more than "Muslims" should. I absolutely believe that lots of things in society are "wrong", like prostitution, but it's my job to convince others to not engage in it, not to make the state do my job for me. Not to mention that when they do it, it really doesn't do a lot to further the Christian cause, in fact I believe solidly that it harms it. The atheist uprising didn't come out of nowhere, Christians helped create it by attempting to force their beliefs instead of using persuasion.

If people are living a lifestyle that the church doesn't agree with, it's not a failure of the state, it's a failure of the church. With regard to this country specifically early in the last century the church decided that if people weren't going to choose what they considered a Christian lifestyle, the would legislate them into it. Instead, if you think your ideas and beliefs are good ones everyone can benefit from, convince them to live that way of their own volition by making a compelling argument. Most Christians believe that God gave us free will, so I don't understand why so many of them are eager to take it away from their fellow man. Do you think you know better than God?

Now that said, on the flip side, the idea that politicians shouldn't have the same freedom to express their religious views that the rest of us enjoy is infuriating. Putting up with the voice you don't care for is required to ensure that yours has the opportunity to be heard as well.

If every Christian was like you, our society would be much better off. I find very little to disagree with in your post, besides our fairly certain disagreement about the existence of a deity, of course.

Everyone should have the same freedom to express their view on anything, religious or otherwise. This includes politicians, but they must understand that each of their words will be recorded and used against them by their opponents, come election time. Voters have as much right to cast their ballot according to what they think of a politician's statement as the politician has to make that statement. Therein lies the difference between Joe Citizen's right to free speech and the politician's same right.

You are correct in assuming that some atheists are born of a resistance to attempted control of their lives by the overbearing elements of a religion, but please understand that there is also a large portion of atheists that simply have reached a logical conclusion regarding the existence of a deity through thought, study, observation and personal experience.

I am the latter type of atheist, having endured no more trauma personally from religion than having to stay awake through a Catholic mass. While I am always infuriated when people suffer or are oppressed by religious doctrine, I also recognize that religious groups have done a lot of good for people all around the world. An atheist is not the same as an anti-theist.

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful post.

BTW....I disagree with the tag line under your username.

 

[CTS]

You are correct in assuming that some atheists are born of a resistance to attempted control of their lives by the overbearing elements of a religion, but please understand that there is also a large portion of atheists that simply have reached a logical conclusion regarding the existence of a deity through thought, study, observation and personal experience.

Yeah, I probably should have put more thought into that part of it, but it was a midnight political post and I have a wicked head cold...you're lucky there any legible words at all.

I completely get the atheist "belief" system if you will, and I guess I meant the near militarization of some atheist individuals can be partly blamed by over-reaching religious types who only want their freedom no matter who loses theirs in the process. My beliefs are the culmination of many personal experiences, that certainly can't be replicated by others in a "lab" setting. I'm the product of my experiences and observations, just like I'm sure you're the product of yours. Even if we disagree I can respect an atheist who can rationally explain his stance, since I believe thinking is the pathway to Christianity, just as much as you most likely believe it's the pathway away from it.

Unfortunately for both of our "sides", if there is such a thing, we're plagued by a lot of dogmatic individuals who just believe the way they do..."because it's right." Personally, if Neil Degrasse Tyson walked into my church, I would ask if he would be willing to speak. I love hearing other viewpoints.

 

[Trooper]

Kind of off-topic here, but since it's being discussed, I haven't advertised the fact but in addition to my day job I'm also an assistant pastor at a very Evangelical church and am rather opinionated on the subject of church/state separation.

My belief is that as few things as humanly possible should be "illegal" in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter). When your actions are going to cause harm to another (not just a little but a lot) then I'm fine with society curtailing that behavior...murder should be illegal, prostitution should not. Now that's not saying I would ever choose to visit a brothel, but until it can be pointed out to me how that activity has a serious effect on me or another when someone else chooses to engage in it, I can't see making it illegal. There might be a good case for making it illegal, but I think you get my point. "Christians" should not be seeking to legislate their morality on others any more than "Muslims" should. I absolutely believe that lots of things in society are "wrong", like prostitution, but it's my job to convince others to not engage in it, not to make the state do my job for me. Not to mention that when they do it, it really doesn't do a lot to further the Christian cause, in fact I believe solidly that it harms it. The atheist uprising didn't come out of nowhere, Christians helped create it by attempting to force their beliefs instead of using persuasion.

If people are living a lifestyle that the church doesn't agree with, it's not a failure of the state, it's a failure of the church. With regard to this country specifically early in the last century the church decided that if people weren't going to choose what they considered a Christian lifestyle, the would legislate them into it. Instead, if you think your ideas and beliefs are good ones everyone can benefit from, convince them to live that way of their own volition by making a compelling argument. Most Christians believe that God gave us free will, so I don't understand why so many of them are eager to take it away from their fellow man. Do you think you know better than God?

Now that said, on the flip side, the idea that politicians shouldn't have the same freedom to express their religious views that the rest of us enjoy is infuriating. Putting up with the voice you don't care for is required to ensure that yours has the opportunity to be heard as well.

From my experience, your views are typical of most evangelicals that I have met. It is not the evangelicals who want to have laws banning things. Rather it is those from the more traditional churches (ie Catholic or protestant). Evangelicals seemed have learned that there is not political solution to a spiritual problem. Rather the problems of society are due to the church failing (as a group of people) to reach individuals (person to person) in order to be the family that so many lack.

The point is not about religion but rather that there is no political solution for problems due to human nature.

Mourdock should have the right to express his beliefs. But he should also be wise enough to know that his beliefs can not be put fully into law given that you can not force others to love. It is just as bad on the other side with the homosexuals wanting to use laws to force people to accept and love them. And, yes, they do want that, even openly state it.

Gregg and Donnelly come across as believing that the children produced by rape are evil and must be destroyed. That is the basic arguement that no woman should have to care for a child of rape. And Gregg's last ad against the Tea Party comes across as seeing the Tea Party as something to be destroyed. Implied is that evangelicals are also evil. Does anyone believe that Gregg or Donnelly, if elected, will not be resented and mistrusted? It is the democrats who divide this country.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Gregg and Donnelly come across as believing that the children produced by rape are evil and must be destroyed. That is the basic arguement that no woman should have to care for a child of rape.

Good thing that Pence drew his line in the sand and let everyone know where he stands...

“I strongly disagree with the statement made by Richard Mourdock during last night’s Senate debate,” Pence said in a statement released Wednesday morning. “I urge him to apologize.”

And Gregg's last ad against the Tea Party comes across as seeing the Tea Party as something to be destroyed. Implied is that evangelicals are also evil. Does anyone believe that Gregg or Donnelly, if elected, will not be resented and mistrusted? It is the democrats who divide this country.

While I agree that the Mourdock quotes became fodder for a slew of attack ads against him (and other republicans in the state), wouldn't have this played out different if the republicans worked to control the conversation instead of giving Mourdock's opponents more ammunition?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm actually on the fence whether to vote for Mourdock or Horning.

I like them both, as men, and Mourdock could just as easily be running under the Libertarian banner, given his stance on issues.

Like someone else posted earlier. Most of the attack ads against him, just make me like him more.

Also, his choice of words probably wasn't the best, but I agree with his sentiment.
God is in control of everything. To say otherwise undermines the entire idea of Monotheism.

Religion aside, logically, you can't have omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, without taking the bad with the good. Otherwise, you only have a part time deity.

Now, if there were a Pantheon of Gods each responsible for this or that, then you could cheer lead for the God who was only responsible for good stuff.

Then, you could pit good against evil (which is in itself a logical fallacy).

 

[CTS]

You know, in this whole discussion, nothing annoys me more than people who assume that being against abortion under nearly any circumstance is somehow has to be a religious issue. Someone could be an atheist and still believe that society is better off if we value all human life.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You know, in this whole discussion, nothing annoys me more than people who assume that being against abortion under nearly any circumstance is somehow has to be a religious issue. Someone could be an atheist and still believe that society is better off if we value all human life.

But could they be good LP's?

According to their platform, the unborn child has no rights; unlike their parents, they don't get to own their bodies.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

[mrjarrell]

But could they be good LP's?

According to their platform, the unborn child has no rights; unlike their parents, they don't get to own their bodies.

If you think that's what that plank says then your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you think that's what that plank says then your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Not at all. I can read through the BS. It says an unborn child's birth is at the descretion of the parent(s).

To say it's anything other than that is obfuscation. And to think the LP is anything different than a typical political party is laughable.

 

[mrjarrell]

I see they stopped teaching English as a second language.