Mel Gibson pushed for President

[Steph700]

TarAshly:

So do you also agree with no prayer in school, the ten commandments shouldnt be displayed, taking God out of the National Anthem and off of the money? sorry i dont think so. i think this country is becoming a culture of death, both in the biological sense and in the ethical and morality sense, and a good Christian President could lead by example and make a lot of good things happen. IMHO.

Read my lips… I stand behind seperation of church and state.

Can we return to my hypothetical situation that a Muslim gov’t comes into power. Would you want your children bowing in prayer 5 times a day towards Mecca? Would you want excerps from the Koran displayed at courthouses? Do you want the name of Allah on your money?

If we allow America to be governed by religion, what happens when we are no longer safe and sound with leaders who happen to share our judeo-christian ethics?

Sounds like a scary scenario to me.

 

[Steph700]

jlw:

All decent points, Steph. Well said. AND…

Would YOU prefer a person of faith in the Oval Office?? Yes or no??

I prefer the person most qualified for the job be in the oval office regardless of religion.

 

[Steph700]

Brad:

How do you explain the fact that Mel meets 90% of your criteria but you are able to flippantly cast him away from consideration?

Here is what I know about Mel Gibson…

He’s catholic, he’s a great actor, he’s a good director, and he very generously funded the making of The Passion.

These are all good things, but I do not know where he stands on political issues or what his political background is? No. Is it foolish for me not to automatically get in line to vote for him? I don’t think so.

 

[Steph700]

Brad:

Again you exclude someone specifically because they are devoutly Catholic. I would exclude someone if they were Muslim because their religion is false. Do you see the difference or do you not believe the Catholic religion is true?

The difference I see is that I would not exclude someone based off of religion b/c I see value in separating church and state, and that you would exclude someone based off religion.

Do you really believe b/c someone is Muslim they could not be a good president?

I can’t believe the things I am hearing/reading here!!

Parenthetically, do you think I must reject the Truth of Catholicism in order to be open-minded enough to realize that an individual can be a great leader without being a devout Catholic?

 

[Steph700]

Lisa4Catholics:

It is very interesting you brought up a political uniter:nope: Are you saying you want a spinleless person who will flop back and forth to please people regardless of whether it is right or wrong?Look at how wonderful our country is turning out now:nope: After years PC and trying not to discriminate,or hurt peoples feelings if they were engaged in evil acts.We have such an open and happy society

Wow, Lisa. I can’t believe you would put words in my mouth like that.

Have you taken a look at America how it stands in 2005? We are a DIVIVED nation. Polarized. As I see it, we could be on the brink of an internal struggle that will tear our nation apart.

One option, which our nation has chosen, is to elect a president who divides the nation in half. Half the people love him, half the people hate him. How much can Bush really get done when half the people in our country are fighting against what he does? Not much. Now, notice here, I am not saying he didn’t win fairly. Bush won fair and square. The problem is, he has so polarized the left that they are not going to do anything to help him make progress in our country.

On the other hand, consider what I said in my post above. No, I NEVER, ever said spineless, thank you very much. I said UNITER. There’s a difference between winning the vote by majority and half the people hate you- and between winning the vote but still being able to get those who voted against you to follow your lead. THIS is the quality I was describing.

Before this turns into a political debate, I would also like to say that Americans were in a tough spot this go around b/c both of the 2 main candidates were divisive figures. My hope is that for the future we will have better choices- hopefully 1 or 2 people who could potentially unify our country before it implodes.

 

[Richardols]

Steph700:

I prefer the person most qualified for the job be in the oval office regardless of religion.

I agree, though America hasn’t always gotten that “most qualified” president.

 

[TarAshly]

In answer to your question do i think a muslim would be a good president? plain and simply. NO! theres nothing wrong with them believing what they want to believe. i just dont want one of them telling me what i have to do. now would you answer mine?

 

[Brad]

Steph700:

Read my lips… I stand behind seperation of church and state.

The words Church and Separation do NOT appear in the Constitution anywhere. Judicial tyrants have invented this concept.

Steph700:

Can we return to my hypothetical situation that a Muslim gov’t comes into power. Would you want your children bowing in prayer 5 times a day towards Mecca? Would you want excerps from the Koran displayed at courthouses? Do you want the name of Allah on your money?

No. Because the Muslim religion is false and requirers believers to mandate others to adhere to their practices. The Catholic religon is true and DOES NOT require others to adhere to their practices, aside from natural law which is written on every person’s heart. That is why I am a Christian.

Steph700:

If we allow America to be governed by religion, what happens when we are no longer safe and sound with leaders who happen to share our judeo-christian ethics?

Umm. We aren’t safe and sound. We already have pagans as “leaders” and judges.

Steph700:

Sounds like a scary scenario to me.

It’s already scary when we can butcher babies and dehydrate the disabled on command and on taxpayer bill.

 

[Brad]

Steph700:

Here is what I know about Mel Gibson…

He’s catholic, he’s a great actor, he’s a good director, and he very generously funded the making of The Passion.

These are all good things, but I do not know where he stands on political issues or what his political background is? No. Is it foolish for me not to automatically get in line to vote for him? I don’t think so.

I don’t think it is foolish to not automatically get in line to vote for him. I think it is wrong to discard him, or someone like him, as being remotely credible.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

No. Because the Muslim religion is false and requirers believers to mandate others to adhere to their practices.

I’d have no problem voting for a Moslem, because any Moslem who ran for President would be as secular as our present and past presidents. Bush doesn’t push his Methodism on the country - and a Moslem wouldn’t push Islam either.

We’re electing a President for all Americans, not an Imam, Minister, or Bishop - and every candidate knows that.

 

[Brad]

Steph700:

The difference I see is that I would not exclude someone based off of religion b/c I see value in separating church and state, and that you would exclude someone based off religion.

I see value in being lead by someone that has a handle on truth. I don’t see value in some arbitrary, fictitious separation of church and state that our founding fathers did not believe in.

Steph700:

Do you really believe b/c someone is Muslim they could not be a good president?

Not impossible but VERY unlikely. Their foundation of belief is very far from the truth.

Steph700:

I can’t believe the things I am hearing/reading here!!

Sorry. Truth and political correctness are 2 different things.

Steph700:

Parenthetically, do you think I must reject the Truth of Catholicism in order to be open-minded enough to realize that an individual can be a great leader without being a devout Catholic?

No. I don’t think that. But I do suspect(although I don’t know for sure) you reject some parts of Catholicism by holding so fast to this “separation of Church and State”.

 

[Brad]

Steph700:

Wow, Lisa. I can’t believe you would put words in my mouth like that.

Have you taken a look at America how it stands in 2005? We are a DIVIVED nation. Polarized. As I see it, we could be on the brink of an internal struggle that will tear our nation apart.

One option, which our nation has chosen, is to elect a president who divides the nation in half. Half the people love him, half the people hate him. How much can Bush really get done when half the people in our country are fighting against what he does? Not much. Now, notice here, I am not saying he didn’t win fairly. Bush won fair and square. The problem is, he has so polarized the left that they are not going to do anything to help him make progress in our country.

On the other hand, consider what I said in my post above. No, I NEVER, ever said spineless, thank you very much. I said UNITER. There’s a difference between winning the vote by majority and half the people hate you- and between winning the vote but still being able to get those who voted against you to follow your lead. THIS is the quality I was describing.

Before this turns into a political debate, I would also like to say that Americans were in a tough spot this go around b/c both of the 2 main candidates were divisive figures. My hope is that for the future we will have better choices- hopefully 1 or 2 people who could potentially unify our country before it implodes.

Bush is not divisive. The left is divisive because they have embraced moral relativism and immorality as party platforms which are diametrically opposed to truth. There can be no unity outside of truth. Jesus is the ultimate uniter and they also called Him Truth. Yet he was divisive becuase many did not accept the truth.

 

[TarAshly]

Brad:

No. I don’t think that. But I do suspect(although I don’t know for sure) you reject some parts of Catholicism by holding so fast to this “separation of Church and State”.

That was my point exactly! didnt quite know how to put it! thanks for seeing the forrest through the trees!

 

[TarAshly]

Brad:

Bush is not divisive. The left is divisive because they have embraced moral relativism and immorality as party platforms which are diametrically opposed to truth. There can be no unity outside of truth. Jesus is the ultimate uniter and they also called Him Truth. Yet he was divisive becuase many did not accept the truth.

:clapping: WELL PUT BRAD! you want unity you want church, you want division you want state!

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

I agree, though America hasn’t always gotten that “most qualified” president.

So what is your definition of most qualified? Most Democrats I know had one criteria for qualification: not Bush. That says a lot about their candidate.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Bush is not divisive.

Your opinion. Our country is polarized into the Red and Blue states. Half the people have no use for Bush, half love him. And he can’t get the entire nation behind him. That’s divisive.

You can deny it, but that’s how most peole including myself see politics in this country at this time.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

So what is your definition of most qualified? Most Democrats I know had one criteria for qualification: not Bush. That says a lot about their candidate.

Are you aware that we have had more than two elections in this country since it was founded? It was not only 2000 and 2004.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

I’d have no problem voting for a Moslem, because any Moslem who ran for President would be as secular as our present and past presidents. Bush doesn’t push his Methodism on the country - and a Moslem wouldn’t push Islam either.

We’re electing a President for all Americans, not an Imam, Minister, or Bishop - and every candidate knows that.

No. He doesn’t push it. But he’s guided by it and he sees law based upon it. A devout Muslim would do likewise. No thanks.

This country is largely Christian and that is why it elects Christian presidents. We aren’t that schizophrenic yet, but we’re working on it.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Your opinion. Our country is polarized into the Red and Blue states. Half the people have no use for Bush, half love him. And he can’t get the entire nation behind him. That’s divisive.

You can deny it, but that’s how most peole including myself see politics in this country at this time.

What did you call Gore in 2000?? GUARANTEED that if he was elected, the MSM line would not be “what a divider!” No, they would just demonize republicans as being out-of-touch etc, right??? RIGHT.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Your opinion. Our country is polarized into the Red and Blue states. Half the people have no use for Bush, half love him. And he can’t get the entire nation behind him. That’s divisive.

You can deny it, but that’s how most peole including myself see politics in this country at this time.

It’s not how most peopel see politics at this time. The majority doesn’t see it that way. They voted for him. The left paints it that way. The entire campaign was ripping the guy. If they had some decency and worked with him and you may be surprised at how non-divisive he is. But the left will not let go of it’s moral relativism, which now translates into letting go of all decency.

I think promoting, funding, and voting for legalized baby killing, especially partial-birth abortion, is pretty divisive. I think pushing judicial tyrants to accomplish your goals when you don’t have the votes to get it done is pretty divisive. And I’m not alone in this understanding.