I am not impressed; but given his lack of experience ( Mr. Obama ), I suppose this was the best he coulld do ???? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I think they're obligated to NOT bring their beliefs into politics. They are to protect the freedoms of all Americans, not the Americans who agree with them.

@LoBornlite@xanga - If that's hypocricy, Christianity is in a heap of trouble.

I'm of the opinion that the separation of church and state protects both from the corruption of the other. There are too many varying opinions in religion to statisfy everyone. There are too many varying opinions in politics to statisfy everyone. Mixing the two just makes it an even bigger mess than necessary.

@LoBornlite@xanga - It's just something you are going to have to work out for yourself on your own time.

Obviously, I hold a contrary position to your's. I applied Whataboutbahb's comment to your claim as a point of rebuttal.

I've worked it out, Whataboutbahb sounds perfectly reasonable; and you're unwilling to provide rhyme or reason of your claims.

At this point, your comments thus far can be treated no more than high pitched babbling-- a few steps below a cricket's chirp.

You have a very particular way of perceiving things and experience has shown that getting involved in a discussion is a waste of time.

I'll be the judge of my own time, thank you very much.

But beyond this is taking intellectual responsbility for your own discourse, especially when you stray onto personal attacks of intelligence. I don't mind people being nasty towards me, I'd just like to hear the substance behind it.

There's something else going on with you besides the pursuit of truth.

I like discussion for discussion's sake. I was civil (at least neutral) in my wording and approach. It was you who first stepped beyond intellectual discussion and rolled out the connotative barbs.

@LoBornlite@xanga - Good night~

Unless McCain wants to lose, I think Obama just ended his run with this pick.  The Democrats again slap the face of one of their long, traditional core voting blocs in American Catholics and further push them towards the GOP.  Another East Coast liberal elitist politician...that will do nothing in the Democrats' efforts in trying to pick up some "in play" red states.  But then again I never under-estimate the DNC's beautiful ability to shoot itself in the foot.  I'm glad I'm not on their team.

As far as religion and politics, how does one's religion not determine one's political views.  It's one's belief of God and of what God is, desires, expects, etc that influences all other thinking.  The seperation wall is to keep the State out of the Church.  Pro-Choice Catholic....if it doesn't get more messed up and wrong than that, who knows what is.

@LoBornlite@xanga - 

"Belief separated from action defines hypocrisy.  It's as simple as that."

But there's a problem with that statement. A politician's political actions should be based on his political beliefs, which do not necessarily have to align with his religious beliefs. Thus no hypocrisy is involved. You are confusing two belief systems that can exist separate from each other.

"What you call reason is just contrived,
muddled, mental fog.  There is no clarity whatsoever in the "Christian
libertarian" example."

One's view of the role of government and what the government is capable of, both positive and negative, is how one's political beliefs are formed. If one view's government as a necessary evil, something that should not be granted too much power, be it in favor of that person's own personal beliefs or not, than it is perfectly reasonable for that person to have differing political and moral viewpoints. If a person is morally opposed to alcohol, should that person automatically be in favor of trying to ban alcohol in that country? What if that person thinks that attempting to ban alcohol will cause more societal ills than it would solve? (ex. The rise of the mafia) And what if the person views the government of being incapable of being able to enforce a ban on alcohol? So why should the person hold a political viewpoint that could worsen society as a whole (in his opinion) and not even be an effective policy (people still drink, the action he wished to suppress in the first place?)

Should Christian politicians try to make adultery illegal? Pre-marital sex illegal? If they don't, according to your earlier statements they are hypocrites for giving their political approval to actions which they are morally opposed to.

"In my world there is no greater time waster than 'discussion for discussion's sake.'"

That's sad to hear. I view discussion as an opportunity to refine my own thoughts as well as potentially expand my own views and beliefs by hearing contrary views and opinions.

there's a difference between upholding your own religious beliefs and forcing those beliefs on other people.

like, someone who claims to be a christian shouldn't marry someone of the same sex because that would be hypocritical. but they can respect other people who aren't of their faith & be in favor of legalizing gay marrige.

abortion is different because it's not just a religious issue. it's a human rights issue too. so a christian could vote either way according to their view of a fetus.

basically, if people claim to be of a certain religion then they should follow it...but not expect other people to.

<3

"Separating your morality from your actions
is also called pragmatism.  Pragmatism is the characteristic thinking
of the Left:  The ends justify the means. "

You have me very confused. So what definition of pragmatism are you operating under, since the definition you are using is one I've never heard of before.

"By definition, a moral act is an act that has a good result (Aristotle). "

It's been awhile since I've studied Aristotelean ethics, but I was under the impression he classified a moral act as one that also had good motives, good means, along with good consequences. I remember Arisototle not fiting into a clear deontological (main value is in the act or kind of act itself) or teleological (basically the value is in the result). One of the books I have on Ethics classifies Aristotle into a virtue based ethical system that differs from the other two.

But if I were to make an argument based simply off your definition of a good act ("By definition, a moral act is an act that has a good result (Aristotle). "), you just helped me prove my point. From a utilitarian viewpoint (which is a teleological ethical system, one that values the results), there are many arguments that can be made for having a view of government that differs from one's moral views. Take John Stuart Mill for example. One the most famous utilitarians, he argued that government should be very limited based on that would produce the best result for the whole.

"Pragmatism ultimately results in
nihilism.  Nihilism is total evil.  So in the philosophical and
spiritual outlook described here, your way of thinking leads to evil
and is thus immoral."

I'll get to this after my class is over at 5. But it would help if you tell me what definition of pragmatism you are using, and where on earth you got it from.
"BTW, principle and simplicity are
also despised by the Left.  You guys just make it up as you go along,
as long as it gets you where you think you need to be."
You are assuming I'm a liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I vote conservative. I prefer limited government, how on earth would that paint me as liberal in the present sense of the word in the U.S.?

"If I am morally opposed to alcohol than I am bound to see it eliminated."

Wow, then all christian politicians who are morally opposed to alcohol are not doing something they should be doing then, huh? We might as well get cheating and premarital sex illegalized while were at it to then. Right? (Do you really think that that is a wise political endeavor to try and attain?)

@franksabunch@xanga - I couldn't agree more.  Considering he's running for the President, which NO issue should be above your paygrade, he has further scared me away.  I don't believe in voting on one issue alone (i.e. voting for or against someone only because of their views on abortion), but it disturbs me that he support third trimester births, which is so brutal and inhumane.  I am truly puzzled at how much America has embraced this man sometimes.  Instead of answering that question, he took the biggest cop out ever.

@whataboutbahb@xanga - Excellent post. I'm a committed Christian and Ron Paul supporter. I want leaders with integrity but definitely don't want to force Christianity on people via government policy.

We should overturn Roe v. Wade and let States decide. I would hope that abortion would only be in the case of danger to the mother or when its 99% known the child will be a complete vegetable, but we have to work on that @ the State level.

I've really thought a lot about Gay marriage lately. I fully agree with the Bible that its a sin. But in a free society people are free to commit to one another in a gay relationship. What is the point of making it illegal to marry? Will they go straight? Anyone has the right to give whoever they want power of attorney to decide life support issues, and to will to whoever they want their fortune when they die.

Maybe I just don't get the argument for this. If my tax money goes to subsidize gay marriage then yeah I've got an issue, just like I don't like my tax money going to Planned Parenthood. Apart from that it should be a church issue, not a government issue - if we had less government in our lives, that is, if the tax code were simpler (or personal income tax done away with altogether as it should be) then there would be no issue with governments having to recognize gay marriages.

Am I being to idealistic?