Who do you think is gonna win the Presidental election? Any opinions??

Hillary will at this time probably get my vote,,Obama wants to invade Pakistan,,with afganistan and Iraq i think we have had enough war for a while ,,,,,and Obama is not on my list for a vote,..

Fred Thompson will win if he enters the race. Hillary is a Socialist in disguise(Maybe not if I can see it), Obama is is over his head and John Edwards is basically just a rich snob lawyer that got rich from suing doctors. By the way, Hillary has no business being President anyway.

Didnt Hillary run the country when Bill was elected ,,I thought she did a good job..A lot better that Bush is doing..

Fred Thompson will win the presidency if nothing else because of his wife. However he has a lot more going for him. The mans initials that he stands for are RR and I absolutely am not talking about Ronnie Robbins.

I like Ron Paul more on most issues but we really need a national health care system like the European countries enjoy.

Yeah Hillary would be a good president of a European socialist country. They like that stuff over there. Problem is this is America and no spin is right she has no business being president here.

of current candidates that actually have a prayer of winning? Remember the Republicans can't win Bush has already made that bed for them.LOL

Well even if that is true then I would say yes there are better candidates on the democratic side. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and maybe even John Edwards would be better than having Hillary Marx in there.

don't agree with it though. I do like Edwards and wish he were doing better in the polls.

I like Biden and Edwards but Clinton seems to be the better candidate. She appears to be heads above all candidates (democrat or republican) in the intelligence department!

I'm not going to question her intelligence but that is somewhat irrelevant to begin with. If it was all about intelligence we could just give everyone in the country an IQ test and promote the person with the highest score to the Presidency. What I have a problem with is the policies she wants to implement which will shift our country more in the direction of a european entitlement state than the hard working capitalist state that America has always been about. France has been in that system for decades and where did it get them? They finally got tired of it and elected Nicholas Sarkozy which was a huge step in the right direction for them. All the while it looks like we could be headed in the other direction if Hillary has her way. Do we want to try and model ourselves after Canada? IMHO it should be the other way around. I don't want to see big government come back in the way of increased taxes across the board to pay for huge gov't ran ineffective social programs. This is what Hillary wants and she has done very little to hide it. She is much more of a Marxist than her husband. It's fine if people say they are unhappy with Bush. I am unhappy with him in many ways too...but for goodness sake just because one doesn't like Nazi's it doesn't mean they have to support Communism.(I'm not calling Bush or Hillary either one just using that as an example) Maybe I should say just because you don't like Haysi doesn't mean you have to be a Greenwave fan

That's not to mention the liberal ideas she has on the moral side of things which I won't get into.

I suppose if you want to use extreme terminology and imply that Hillary is a communist, it is just as fair (actually more than fair) to say that Bush is a fascist (read Nazi).







http://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php

Capitalism is all about big business. Corporations have the rights of real persons. Now that is just not right.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Now, I'm not a religious person but for those who are, do you think Jesus was a capitalist, a socialist, or a fascist? If he existed and the stories about him are accurate, I would say that he came closest to being a socialist.

Now, if you want to talk about big government and big spending, you need look no further than the Bush administration. We are so far in debt now (China, a communist country, being our biggest creditor) that our great-great-grandchildren will still be paying for it. The "war" in Iraq is projected to cost 4.5 trillion dollars ($4,500,000,000,000.00). Imagine what that could have done for our own country and toward the development of alternative, clean, and sustainable sources of energy.

You may not like the Clintons but the fact is that Bill left us with a surpluses while Bush has not only used up that surplus but has also plunged us into record deficits.

In the end, as voters exercising our responsibility to know the issues and to vote, will get the government we deserve.

As far as social issues are concerned, I realize that conservatives and religious fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) get all excited and bent out of shape about reproductive and sexual things and that they want to control everyone's bedroom but the real social issues are things like hunger, homelessness, disease, and education. Personally I could not care less what someone else does sexually. I'm an adult and I am free to make my own decisions about matters like that. If a certain sexual or reproductive practice is not for you, you currently have the CHOICE to not do it. That doesn't mean that you have the right to choose for others.

"I suppose if you want to use extreme terminology and imply that Hillary is a communist, it is just as fair (actually more than fair) to say that Bush is a fascist (read Nazi)."

-If you would have read carefully you would have saw that I included Bush in the analogy. It wasn't meant to be taken literally in respect to Mr. Bush or Mrs. Clinton. She is not a communist and Bush is not a Nazi. I'm aware of the relationships between communism and socialism. I'm also aware of the relationship between Nazi's and fascism. The Nazis were also socialists. The party itself was called the National Socialist Party of Germany. "Nazi" was derived from the German pronunciation of it.

"Now, I'm not a religious person but for those who are, do you think Jesus was a capitalist, a socialist, or a fascist? If he existed and the stories about him are accurate, I would say that he came closest to being a socialist."

-I would say he was closer to being a capitalist. He encouraged the prosperous to give to the poor based on their own freewill because it was the right thing to do. He did not encourage government to mandate the prosperous to give to the poor. That would defeat the purpose of his teachings. He taught us to give because we should want to not because the government forced us. Jesus was a carpenter and in his life he worked hard. The Bible teaches that hard work and self reliance/support are positive virtues. Entitlement states are contradictory to this idea. Socialism teaches that we are all entitled no matter what we do to earn it. I'm all for paying taxes and having having government take care of the common necessities of our society but I am harshly opposed to becoming an entitlement state. If people want to give then that's great I encourage it but it's not the governments job to be issuing handouts for whoever gets in line.

"Now, if you want to talk about big government and big spending, you need look no further than the Bush administration. We are so far in debt now (China, a communist country, being our biggest creditor) that our great-great-grandchildren will still be paying for it. The "war" in Iraq is projected to cost 4.5 trillion dollars ($4,500,000,000,000.00). Imagine what that could have done for our own country and toward the development of alternative, clean, and sustainable sources of energy."

-I agree with parts of that but 9/11 was a catastrophic and unforeseen event. Our military was ill equipped to deal with the many challenges that lay ahead in the new offensive against Islamic Jihad. That was due in large part to the cuts made by the Clinton administration. Bush has made mistakes though in that this offensive should be far ahead of where it is and hence is costing more than it should have.

"You may not like the Clintons but the fact is that Bill left us with a surpluses while Bush has not only used up that surplus but has also plunged us into record deficits."

-I like Bill good enough. He was ok. Hillary isn't Bill though and no I do not like her.

"As far as social issues are concerned, I realize that conservatives and religious fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) get all excited and bent out of shape about reproductive and sexual things and that they want to control everyone's bedroom but the real social issues are things like hunger, homelessness, disease, and education. Personally I could not care less what someone else does sexually. I'm an adult and I am free to make my own decisions about matters like that. If a certain sexual or reproductive practice is not for you, you currently have the CHOICE to not do it. That doesn't mean that you have the right to choose for others."

-First of all Christian and Muslim fundementalists are nothing alike and to compare the two from your secularist standpoint is ridiculous. I wouldn't call myself a fundementalist but I do not get all bent out of shape about "sexual things." I do not want to control everyone's bedroom. I do not want to control or choose for others what they do sexually. You have the wrong idea about the majority of Christians on this issue I do believe. There is a big difference between having the freedom to do what you want sexually and having the freedom to kill an unborn child. There is a big difference between picking up your gay buddy then going to do whatever it is you do with them and adam and steve walking down the aisle and enjoying the same privileges as a regular married couple. You secular progressives think you have it all figured out and want to label christians as trying to take your rights away when in reality you just don't get it at all...or don't want to.

:You secular progressives think you have it all figured out :and want to label Christians as trying to take your rights :away when in reality you just don't get it at all...or don't :want to.

Yes, I think that fundamentalist Christians are as dogmatic and repressive as fundamentalist Muslims and that they would indeed diminish choice if they could find a way around the constitution. Isn't it obvious. Instead of simply staying away from things they believe to be wrong, they seek to eliminate those choices for everyone else while at once preaching that their God has granted people free will. Don't you see the contradiction here? Is objectivity completely lacking?

Christians are actively engaged in eliminating God-given free will! I think Jesus would be pretty upset if he knew about this LOL!

Both Islam and Christianity (as interpreted by institutional denominations) are very oppressive by nature and are really more similar than they are different. They both, together with Judaism are Abrahamic, monotheistic religions from the Middle East. Moreover Islam, like Christianity, accepts the older Jewish Bible and is based largely upon Jewish ideas and traditions.

"Yes, I think that fundamentalist Christians are as dogmatic and repressive as fundamentalist Muslims and that they would indeed diminish choice if they could find a way around the constitution."

-It's interesting you mention this since most of the framers of the Constitution were Christians themselves of the Episcopalian denomination.

"Isn't it obvious. Instead of simply staying away from things they believe to be wrong, they seek to eliminate those choices for everyone else while at once preaching that their God has granted people free will. Don't you see the contradiction here? Is objectivity completely lacking?
Christians are actively engaged in eliminating God-given free will! I think Jesus would be pretty upset if he knew about this LOL!"

-No I don't see the contradiction because there is no contradiction except in your mind. The way our republic is set up the citizens themselves have the right to vote for the things they want to see enacted in our society. That is their voice. Secularists aren't the only ones who are allowed to have a voice. It seems you are advocating some form of anarchy? Human government and laws do not affect free will in relation to God. There is a law against murder but you still have the free will to commit such a deplorable act if you so choose. Laws are passed so that there will be consequences for such actions in the human life. If a law banning abortion were passed, theoretically you could still get one. Free will would not be affected in relation to God....only the consequences. While it is likely true that most of our current laws originate from Judeo-Christian foundations such as the Ten Commandments and other Biblical text they are laws that primarily protect the rights of individuals...not infringe upon them.

"Both Islam and Christianity (as interpreted by institutional denominations) are very oppressive by nature and are really more similar than they are different. They both, together with Judaism are Abrahamic, monotheistic religions from the Middle East. Moreover Islam, like Christianity, accepts the older Jewish Bible and is based largely upon Jewish ideas and traditions."

-While it is true that both are monotheistic and have middle eastern ties I'm afraid that is about where the similarities end. The Koran and the Bible are very, very different pieces of literature. Mohammed and Jesus have little if anything at all in common. You say Christianity is oppressive by nature? How is this? In what way do you feel you have been oppressed by Christianity?

-It's interesting you mention this since most of the framers of the Constitution were Christians themselves of the Episcopalian denomination.

I am under the impression that while most of the founding fathers were Episcopalian or of some other protestant denomination they were at once Deists by affiliation (Deist infused Freemasonry) and by deed, believing that a supreme beings began things but then left the universe to evolve through time without divine intervention. Deists would not say God was a personal God while most Christians would say otherwise. I think it was Franklin who was Episcopalian as a child but Deist as an adult.

-No I don't see the contradiction because there is no contradiction except in your mind. The way our republic is set up the citizens themselves have the right to vote for the things they want to see enacted in our society. That is their voice. Secularists aren't the only ones who are allowed to have a voice. It seems you are advocating some form of anarchy? Human government and laws do not affect free will in relation to God. There is a law against murder but you still have the free will to commit such a deplorable act if you so choose. Laws are passed so that there will be consequences for such actions in the human life. If a law banning abortion were passed, theoretically you could still get one. Free will would not be affected in relation to God....only the consequences. While it is likely true that most of our current laws originate from Judeo-Christian foundations such as the Ten Commandments and other Biblical text they are laws that primarily protect the rights of individuals...not infringe upon them.

Historically it is true that our laws generally protect the rights of individuals however we are entering into a new age and greatly disturbing (IMHO)time with the Bush administration advocating the limitation of individual rights instead of the expansion of them. As far as I am aware this is the first time such restriction have been purposed to become permanent. Even the proposal of such permanent restrictions alarms me.

-While it is true that both are monotheistic and have middle eastern ties I'm afraid that is about where the similarities end. The Koran and the Bible are very, very different pieces of literature. Mohammed and Jesus have little if anything at all in common. You say Christianity is oppressive by nature? How is this? In what way do you feel you have been oppressed by Christianity?

Thanks to the United States Constitution I do not feel that I have ever been oppressed by a religion however I know there have been people who would have gladly, even cheerfully, oppressed me if they had been able. You need look no further than the Middle Ages in Europe, the Spanish and Italian inquisitions, the Crusades the flight of Hugeonauts, and the Puritans to avoid persecution from Christians, the Christian persecution of native peoples of every land they invaded from the Americas to Australia. I could go on, and on, and on with more examples but I think you get the idea therefore further examples would serve no useful purpose.

All these wars, all the torture, all the persecution, and killing were in the name of Christianity. Christianity has as bloody a history as does Islam and its history is a longer one. All this and you think Christians are basically good and will honor the rights of the individual. I think not. History teaches us otherwise.

J.M. I really feel sorry for you. I am sorry that you have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. To deny that the GREATEST nation on earth was not founded by Christians and by Christian principles is just simply a complete disregard for history. Christopher Columbus kept a journal, and in that journal he talked about his desire to see the prophecies in Isaiah fulfilled, specifically, that there would come a day when the knowledge of the Lord would cover the earth like the waters cover the sea. His main objective was for Christ, not gold. Also, the very first constituional document, the Mayflower Compact is completely full of Christian principles and acknowledgment of our dependence upon the God of the Bible "a city set upon a hill". The American Revolution was in fact fueled from the pulpit and particularly the Presbyterian pulpit where Christian men declared that our allegiance is to the God of the Bible and not a human king. In fact, one of our great founders, James Madison said this: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of al of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." The English often referred to the revolution as the "Presbyterian Revolution". Our Constitutional republic was establised based on Biblical principles of representative government. In fact, the Church government establised in the Book of Acts, and other New Testament books is rule by ruling elders, teaching elders, and deacons. That is 3 elected representative branches. Also, the judiciary is an example of how in Moses day, his wise father-in-law Jethro, estabishes how judges should be appointed. You make reference to Benjamin Franklin and your belief that he was a Deist later in life. Well, if one reads his prayer recorded in history in the Contiential Congress when it looked like our nation would not be able to come up with an acceptable constitution, there is no way to conclude anything other than Benjamin Franklin was a Christian. How about Patrick Henry? Without the great orator, our nation may not have been established. He constantly brought back to the delegation our dependence upon the grace and mercy of the God of the Bible through His Son, Jesus Christ for success as a nation. Read his speeches.
J.M. the Bible tells us that the things of the Lord are foolishness to those who do not believe. If you don't have a relationship with the Lord, you do not know that only the Son brings true freedom. Think God our founders knew the true source of our freedom and recorded it in all of their documents. Our nation has forgotten what GREAT things the Lord has done for us. Thus, we are like the Israelites in the desert. We need to pray for our nation!

I have time for only the first one you mentioned, Christopher Columbus, right now.

Christopher Columbus was an evil, evil person. We may as well have Hitler day as Columbus day for he too practiced genocide.

He nearly got the axe during the Spanish inquisition but finally he did get permission from Ferdinand and Isabella to try to find a passage to Asia and a mythical island (I think it was called Azoria).

Once he contacted the Native Americans his evil nature and that of his crew became manifest. Columbus and his crew drove at least one tribe of Native Americans (The Arawaks I think) to extinction after enslaving them and working them to death. His men routinely cut slabs of flesh from living Native American slaves to test the sharpness of their blades. Then there is the little boy who was decapitated for the parrot he had, and on it goes. Columbus was very cruel and should not be anyone's hero. Most of this information is from "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It is a very good book and has been very well received.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/0060528370

Here are some exerpts:


<blue>
The first chapter in A People's History of the United States deals with Columbus' arrival to the West Indies. The native inhabitants, the Arawak Indians, swam out to greet the European boats the first time they landed (see Morning Girl, by Michael Dorris). Zinn cites Columbus' journal entries many times, including his reaction to the initial encounter with the Arawaks: 'They would make fine servants....With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want (Zinn, 1).' This attitude led to enslavement, highjacking, murder and rape. The Spaniards main goal was to prove to the royalty back home that the islands were rich and loaded with resources, mainly gold. Columbus took some natives back to show the queen (they died en route), and when he came back with many more men and many more ships, they began a regimented system of slavery and punishment on the natives of the West Indies. All reports speak of the friendliness of the Arawaks, of their genuine kindness and hospitality, and of their generosity. On his second voyage back home, Columbus took 500 slaves to Spain, saying in a letter, 'Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold (Zinn, 4)'; two-hundred died en route.

Columbus and his men were excited over the gold earrings some of the Arawaks wore. This is what escalated the rapid, excited mad dash for gold in the islands (they had to make money for Spanish investors). The men took slaves and enforced mandatory mining on the natives, who, if found without the proper coin around their necks to prove they had brought in enough gold, were then murdered. A young priest named Bartolome de las Casas came along with this new 'exploration' to the West Indies, and he noticed all the attrocities that were happening - and he documented them. In his book History of the Indies, he says '..our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy,(Zinn, 6)' certainly a far cry from Columbus' many religious quotations claiming his groups following of 'His [God's] way.' de las Casas' writings conclude that in the years 1494-1508, over three million native lives were extinguished on the island of Hispaniola from slavery, war, and mining. The invasion of the West Indies resulted in a complete genocide.

Zinn goes on to recapitualte similar conquests by people such as Cortes, Pizarro, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts( see the Colonizers page). Cortez was greeted as a god by the Aztecs, whom, after enduring repeated deception and enormous Spanish-documented slaughter, were completely destroyed by the Spanish for their gold and silver. Pizarro mirrored the horrifying tactics of Cortes in Peru to totally decimate the Inca culture. Chapter 1 of Zinn's book also speaks of the early English colonists in Virginia. It is noted that the natives of the eastern shore were also friendly during initial encounters with whites, though when one native stole a silver cup, an English captain and his men torched an entire Indian village in retribution. The early colonies waged war and succesfully pushed out the native inhabitants of the east coast, namely Powhattan's confederacy, the Narragansetts, and the Pequots. More people came from Europe, and more space was needed. The colonists forced an awful choice on the natives: migrate, or go to war with us.

Chapter 7 of A People's History of America revisits the idea of the plight of the American Indian, this time with a documentation of an endless series of promises made to various Indian tribes, none of which was ever kept. Thomas Jefferson engineered the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, doubling the size of the country. He told congress that the Indians should be encouraged to farm small plots of land, to quit hunting, to trade with whites and to incur debts that they would have to pay off with huge tracts of land. He also said, '..Two measures are deemed expedient. First to encourage them to abandon hunting...Secondly, To Multiply trading houses among them...leading them thus to agriculture, to manufacturers, and civilization...(Zinn, 125).' Jefferson echoes clearly the point of Karl Marx, who states, 'It [capitalism, the bourgeoisie] compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production, it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst...' Through uncountable wars and skirmishes, thousands and thousands of lives, the American Indian was ousted from his/her land in all corners of the continent. Andrew Jackson instructed an army Major to tell the Choctaws and Cherokees that they would be given land, outside of the state of Missippi (their homeland) in which they could be free, and he would protect them as their white father. They could have the land 'as long as Grass grows or water runs (Zinn, 132).' This eloquent lie became famous for its symbolic falseness, as it epitomized the whites' ability to make grand promises that kept changing and changing to meet the needs of their growing society, while never considering the lives of the people who lived on the land first (see the plight of the Dakota, and Crazy Horse). Forced migration and land grubbing by the whites eventually encompassed the entire continent.
</blue>

Now, who is the second person you mentioned? We can discuss him tomorrow. Alternatively you may choose one that you would like to discuss further.

Please don't feel sorry for me. Just try to be well-read and a bit less naive.

Instead of reading interpretations of history by secular authors how about reading the journals, speeches, and original documents of the men themselves? Go to the source. Don't just depend on a preacher telling you what the Bible means, read it for yourself. Perhaps God the Holy Spirit will quicken your mind and heart and the blinders will be removed. Read the Mayflower Compact, read the recorded debates and prayers in the Continential Congress, read the Constitution, read the journals. I am shocked J.M. that you would let an interpreter of history dictate your view of history.

and each work is cited.

I realize that some of these actions and motivations may be difficult for you to accept because you have been indoctrinated on works that stem from the idea of "manifest destiny". However it is a good thing to examine history objectively, without bias, religious or otherwise, otherwise we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Now, if you would rather ignore what Columbus did and go on believing that he was a genuinely good person, you have that right and I would not deprive you of it if I could. However I would question your wisdom.

Benjamin Franklin

In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?


I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?


We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages ...


I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Great post Allison. I think it's much more concrete to take the words from the man himself than to take someone elses secular motivated interpretation. Franklin's statements in that letter could not be farther from that of a Deist. As a matter of fact he points out the error of his own earlier beliefs by writing that the longer he had lived the more he saw the works of God in the every day affairs of man. He had clearly separated himself from any deists beliefs he may have had before by this stage of his life.

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Sale-Section/Biography/-/The-Autobiography-of-Benjamin-Franklin/18190

Here is a review:

Both Surprising and Compelling. Moves well beyond the Disney / elementary school version of Franklin. While the autobiography is incomplete and stops before the revolution, it does great justice in explaining life and situation in pre revolutionary America and Philadelphia. Franklin was a vegetarian. Franklin was (like so many other founding fathers) a deist, not a Christian. The audio is a bit jittery, but after a while one becomes convinced that they are listening to Mr Franklin himself. The book is long and at times Franklin wanders - losing the listener for a bit. It was, after all, not finished and not tightly edited. It is thoroughly enlightening and sets the stage for better understanding the revolution. Our current political leaders would do well to read or listen to this.


BTW: To whom was that letter you posted addressed? More importantly, was it written before or after the American Revolution?

in his later years in his speech to the Continential Congress. This is a direct, historically recorded speech. Your source is a review of an authbiography? Have you read anything other than other peoples opinions to form your own? I am disappointed in you J.M.

I'm unconcerned with your opinion of me.

You are aware I am sure that an AUTO-biography is written by the person it is about, not by someone else, therefore it should fit your criteria for credibility.

This address then was written AFTER Franklin's work as a founding father, therefore as a founding father he was undeniably deist. He was probably still deist when the address was made but keeping these beliefs to himself. Just as politicians, televangelists etc. today feign religious zeal for the favors of public opinion and for profit.

Deism is a very broad category of belief, broader than any religion. All religious devotees are "Theists"...all Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindis, Jews, etc. Deism is another broad category, like Atheism or Agnosticism.

As such, most Deists didn't feel that "Deist" was the right thing to answer when asked their religion. "Freethinker" was about as common as anything else.

And many Deists were members of organized churches, keeping those personal beliefs that differed from their ministers to themselves. These Deists were just as likely to answer "Presbyterian" or "Episcopelian" as "Freethinker" when asked their religion. So I'm not sure just how many of them there were.

And even in individual cases, sometimes it's hard to tell. Were it not for Franklin's own admission that he had converted to Deism after reading some anti-Deist tracts, we probably wouldn't know.

you didn't quote anything out of the autobiograpy itself, only a review of the autobiograpy. Have you read the autobiography yourself OR, again, are you just being led by the nose by those with the same bias you have?
The Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for reading scripture for themselves and then forming their own opinions. Don't you think you should read some of the actual documents without relying upon summaries and interpretations from others?

I listened to it.

It is dangerous to interpret writings for yourself unless you are well-versed in context of the time in which it was written. Many of these authors have made a career of studying cultural history and therefore have a much better understanding of what would be meant by someone in those times.

I would be as if you gave a Rap lyric or a Frank Loyd Wright design to Thomas Jefferson and asked him to interpret it. Of course if he had not studied 21st century popular culture, he would interpret it in the context of 17th century culture and he would probably get it wrong, wrong, wrong.

I am not a historian and therefore rely on historians to interpret these documents in the correct context. To be more objective, I frequently compare more than one modern interpretation.

http://www.gurus.com/dougdeb/politics/americangospel.html

Some of the Founders seem to have intentionally clouded their public statements about religion. Ben Franklin, for example, can be presented as an atheist, a Deist, or a devout Christian depending on which of his writings you choose to quote. At least one recent book, Benjamin Franklin Unmasked by Louis Menand, claims that Franklin engineered this vague and contradictory image for himself. Meacham refers to “the elusive, shape-shifting Franklin.” And John Adams (who served with Franklin as American representatives in Paris) wrote: “The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker.”

www.holybible.com. Try it, the words of God.

There are so many.

The American Revolution was in fact fueled from the pulpit and particularly the Presbyterian pulpit where Christian men declared that our allegiance is to the God of the Bible and not a human king.

Granted, religion has been used many times throughout history to incite the ignorant to do the bidding of the planners. It is a very powerful tool on which to leverage ulterior motives; motives the common person would have more trouble understanding even if he might otherwise agree with them.

However one must wonder that if this is true in the case of the American Revolution, why then was George Washington offered the position of King after the war? For that reason, among others, I strongly doubt the premise of this part of your argument.

As I understand it the ware was all about taxation without representation. We were being oppressed by England. Mr. Jefferson spelled it all out in the Declaration of Independence quite eloquently. If you have never read the Declaration of Independence you can follow the link below to hear it read.

Listen closely as the reasons for the war are clearly defined.

Go here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11703583

and click on the "listen" icon.

The American Revolution was in fact fueled from the pulpit and particularly the Presbyterian pulpit where Christian men declared that our allegiance is to the God of the Bible and not a human king.

Granted, religion has been used many times throughout history to incite the ignorant to do the bidding of the planners. It is a very powerful tool on which to leverage ulterior motives; motives the common person would have more trouble understanding even if he might otherwise agree with them.

However one must wonder that if this is true in the case of the American Revolution, why then was George Washington offered the position of King after the war? For that reason, among others, I strongly doubt the premise of this part of your argument.

As I understand it the ware was all about taxation without representation. We were being oppressed by England. Mr. Jefferson spelled it all out in the Declaration of Independence quite eloquently. If you have never read the Declaration of Independence you can follow the link below to hear it read.

Listen closely as the reasons for the war are clearly defined.

Go here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11703583

and click on the "listen" icon.

Tomorrow we shall discuss James Madison and Benjamin Franklin in the context of your post.

J.M., I suspect that you have a similar philosophy that your friend Mr. Zinn has. Here is his biography from his own web page.

Howard Zinn is a historian, playwright, and social activist. He was a shipyard worker and Air Force bombardier before he went to college under the GI Bill and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He has taught at Spelman College and Boston University, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Paris and the University of Bologna. He has received the Thomas Merton Award, the Eugene V. Debs Award, the Upton Sinclair Award, and the Lannan Literary Award. He lives in Auburndale, Massachusetts.
From Wikipedia:

Zinn was raised in a working-class family in Brooklyn, and flew bombing missions for the United States in World War II, an experience he now points to in shaping his opposition to war. In 1956, he became a professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, a school for black women, where he soon became involved in the Civil rights movement, which he participated in as an adviser to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and chronicled, in his book SNCC: The New Abolitionists. Zinn collaborated with historian Staughton Lynd and mentored a young student named Alice Walker. When he was fired in 1963 for insubordination related to his protest work, he moved to Boston University, where he became a leading critic of the Vietnam War.

He is perhaps best known for A People's History of the United States, which presents American history through the eyes of those he feels are outside of the political and economic establishment.

There is nothing in it that I would find objectionable or extremist. What specifically leads you to assert that Zinn is an "extremest"?

"On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed."

That's pretty extreme in my view. Ofcourse J.M. has more than solidified himself as a secular extremist himself so it's not in the least bit surprising to me.

the term "Nationalism"? I bet it isn't what you think it is.

Dictators and tyrants throughout history have demand extreme nationalism, The doctrine of Manifest Destiny demanded extreme nationalism,

To understand it requires some thought and some objectivity --- at first because we have been steeped in poisoness thoughts our whole lives. Of course some people do not have the ability to even briefly separate themselves from their prejudices.

Here is the rest of the story:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-29.htm

Maybe they are confusing "Nationalism" with "Patriotism".

I'm calculating that you have been spared of Christian oppression by this wonderful document which was created by? You guessed it...Christians. Got me scratching my head on that one.

You speak of President Bush limiting your rights. Specifically speaking in what way has your individual freedom been affected by the executive branch of our government? How has this changed your life?

I'm calculating that you have been spared of Christian oppression by this wonderful document which was created by? You guessed it...Christians. Got me scratching my head on that one.

You need to study them a bit more thoroughly. They were by no means Christians in the same manner as most people define Christians. As I said before there was a strong element of deism and Freemasonry involved in their philosophies as well as classical educations that stressed ancient Grecian and Roman civilization. There was a lot more to the "fathers" than our shallow modern culture.

You speak of President Bush limiting your rights. Specifically speaking in what way has your individual freedom been affected by the executive branch of our government? How has this changed your life?

Not Bush, he's just a puppet, it is his administration and big business that is forcing us into catastrophic debt and proposing to limit our rights. Have you been to an airport lately, have you seen the eyes watching you through cameras in nearly every public place? Does it not bother you that the Big Brother state defined by the Orwellian-named "Homeland security" is intrusive and threatens to become more so. Does it not bother you that we torture prisoners that have not been charged with a crime and hold them indefinitely in prison. Do you know that during the Vietnam conflict "waterboarding" was a crime punishable by court martial but is okay by the Bush administration. Their right to habeas corpus is deigned. Is it OKAY with you that once all public schools fail to meet the NCLB objectives for 2012 (and they will because 100% proficiency is an unreasonable goal) the federal government will take over education. You know very few Dickensonians will be able to pay for private schools so they will be left with an even worse situation. Does it not bother you that your g-g-g-grandchildren will still be paying interest to China for the money we're borrowing to waste in Iraq.

This degradition of our country and what it represents is insidious and could go unnotices while everyone is distracted by high school football or NASCAR but that's what the corrupt government of the Roman Empire did too before it fell. It distracted citizens at the Coloseum so that they wouldn't notice their governmental necrosis. Entertain the masses with Spears/Lohan/Hilton/Vick/NASCAR/CellPhones/Professional Sprots/Wrestling etc. while you make away with national treasure and waste the lives of service people in a conflict that was unnecessary (Iraq).

If these things do not alarm you and you represent most of the population, we are in deep trouble.

It would be great if everyone would wake up but, unfortunately, I think it's already too late.

LOL, I've got it now. Bad News Kennelz is all a Bush conspiracy designed to distract us from his Gestapo! Michael Vick is in cahoots with Bush, I knew it! Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears are all CIA operatives designed to brainwash us! It's all coming together now! You sound like one of those guys that thinks there is a camera linked to the White House in his TV set. I digress.

I don't have a problem with being watched at the airport because I'm not a terrorist and I'm not doing anything wrong. I've flown many times since 9/11 and I appreciate the heightened security. I feel it protects my rights...not restricts. The #1 and most important inalienable right we have as humans is the right to life. Terrorists should be the ones worried about the kind of things you mentioned...not law abiding citizens. Foreign terrorists suspects captured on foreign soil do not have the same legal rights granted to american citizens or foreign nationals arrested inside our borders. I don't have a problem with that.

As far as our founding fathers are concerned I think you are the one who needs to study them a little more thoroughly rather than reading some secularists authors interpretation. Allison gave you some good advice. Read some literature that they actually wrote themselves. If you do that it paints a very different view than the secular progressive junk that is laced with it's own anti-christian agenda.

and that's what they wanted.

Conspiracy? No, but these things are not discouraged. Look around. Not many people are concerned about things of significance these days. They have distractions.

You've bought the Bush agenda hook, line, and sinker/ lock, stock, and barrel LOL!

If you are okay with it, who am I to judge you.

However I am not happy with it and it is not what freedom means to me.

I do suggest that you read Orwell's 1984 if you have not done so already. I think he predicted things to come about 20 years sooner than they have.

Where did I say I was terrified? Just because I am happy that we have increased security nowadays does not mean I'm terrified. I liked it when my linemen blocked for me but I was not terrified of being sacked. You seem to be worried about the wrong people. You are more concerned with your own government of the people than you are with the enemies of this government and it's people.

I have not read Orwell's 1984 but I will put it on my list. I'll take your word for it that it's a good read.

I'm calculating that you have been spared of Christian oppression by this wonderful document which was created by? You guessed it...Christians. Got me scratching my head on that one.

You need to study them a bit more thoroughly. They were by no means Christians in the same manner as most people define Christians. As I said before there was a strong element of deism and Freemasonry involved in their philosophies as well as classical educations that stressed ancient Grecian and Roman civilization. There was a lot more to the "fathers" than our shallow modern culture.

You speak of President Bush limiting your rights. Specifically speaking in what way has your individual freedom been affected by the executive branch of our government? How has this changed your life?

Not Bush, he's just a puppet, it is his administration and big business that is forcing us into catastrophic debt and proposing to limit our rights. Have you been to an airport lately, have you seen the eyes watching you through cameras in nearly every public place? Does it not bother you that the Big Brother state defined by the Orwellian-named "Homeland security" is intrusive and threatens to become more so. Does it not bother you that we torture prisoners that have not been charged with a crime and hold them indefinitely in prison. Do you know that during the Vietnam conflict "waterboarding" was a crime punishable by court martial but is okay by the Bush administration. Their right to habeas corpus is deigned. Is it OKAY with you that once all public schools fail to meet the NCLB objectives for 2012 (and they will because 100% proficiency is an unreasonable goal) the federal government will take over education. You know very few Dickensonians will be able to pay for private schools so they will be left with an even worse situation. Does it not bother you that your g-g-g-grandchildren will still be paying interest to China for the money we're borrowing to waste in Iraq.

This degradation of our country and what it represents is insidious and could go unnoticed while everyone is distracted by high school football or NASCAR but that's what the corrupt government of the Roman Empire did too before it fell. It distracted citizens at the Coloseum so that they wouldn't notice their governmental necrosis. Entertain the masses with Spears/Lohan/Hilton/Vick/NASCAR/CellPhones/Professional Sprots/Wrestling etc. while you make away with national treasure and waste the lives of service people in a conflict that was unnecessary (Iraq).

If these things do not alarm you and you represent most of the population, we are in deep trouble.

It would be great if everyone would wake up but, unfortunately, I think it's already too late.

I don't know about Hillary's I.Q. but I read that the average I.Q. in Dickenson County was 110 in 1994 but had dropped to 85 by 2004. The article was titled "Brain Drain". I remember it made me feel pretty bad.