Mel Gibson pushed for President

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdnation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation’s Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the ’60’s, "70’s and early ’80’s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late l8th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” Our first President also stated, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. "
 
40.png
Brad:
The Constitution’s framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly.
If the Judeo-Christian ethic was the foundation of the U.S., why was the American experiment so rejected by the Popes? The Popes objected to freedom of religion, they rejected freedom of the press, and did not care for a system where man could choose those who would lead them.

Yes, things started changing in the late 19th century, but if it was so obvious that our country had a Christian basis, even the Popes should have recognized that.

BTW, the writers of this piece have a right to their opinions.
 
40.png
Richardols:
If the Judeo-Christian ethic was the foundation of the U.S., why was the American experiment so rejected by the Popes? The Popes objected to freedom of religion, they rejected freedom of the press, and did not care for a system where man could choose those who would lead them.
I simply disagree with that. You have to provide clear evidence for your claims. Historically, the Church has favored and promoted freedom and dignity of man.
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, things started changing in the late 19th century, but if it was so obvious that our country had a Christian basis, even the Popes should have recognized that.
If there were some things the Popes disagreed with it would make sense as this country was founded mainly by Protestants, not Catholics. In any event, I don’t believe any Popes disagreed with the founding documents of the United States.
40.png
Richardols:
BTW, the writers of this piece have a right to their opinions.
Grasping for straws? The writers of this piece have provided facts and direct quotations in favor of their opinions. You have provided… your opinion.
 
40.png
Brad:
I simply disagree with that. You have to provide clear evidence for your claims. Historically, the Church has favored and promoted freedom and dignity of man.
Please read the encyclicals of Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX. Especially read Mirari Vos by Gregory. Also, Leo XIII did not endorse the American Experience.
In any event, I don’t believe any Popes disagreed with the founding documents of the United States.
Read the above.
Grasping for straws? The writers of this piece have provided facts and direct quotations in favor of their opinions. You have provided… your opinion.
I have above, but understand logic. Even if they had a ton of evidence and I had none, it is still their opinion and my opinion.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Please read the encyclicals of Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX. Especially read Mirari Vos by Gregory. Also, Leo XIII did not endorse the American Experience.

Read the above.
Please provide encyclical name and numbered section that shows American founding documents and systems were chastised, especially because they conflicted with Judeo-Christian law.
40.png
Richardols:
I have above, but understand logic. Even if they had a ton of evidence and I had none, it is still their opinion and my opinion.
No it is not. It is much more than their opinion. It carries the weighty support of FACTS regading the founding fathers and DIRECT QUOTATIONS from the founding fathers that show that our founding documents pre-supposed a Judeo-Christian foundation. This is the original intent of our county’s founders. You have not provided similar evidence to support your claim that their original intent pre-supposed secularlism or atheism.
 
40.png
Steph700:
I’m sorry, I’m just tired of this Mel Gibson “idolatry”. I used to like Mel as an actor before I came on these forums, but now after hearing people rant and rave about him all day long I would be perfectly happy not to hear about him more than once a year or whenever he’s in a good movie again!

Really people, there are all kinds of great, talented folks out there- actors, politicians, catholics and non-Catholics. Yes, praise of Mel Gibson is due… but claiming he should now run for president b/c he made a good movie and is a devout Catholic is taking things a little too far.

What next? Nominations for Gibson for Pope??? Give me a break. :rolleyes:
I totally understand where you are coming from but I think praise for him from Catholics and Christians is well-deserved…it’s actually nice to see SOME good come out of Hollywood, wouldnt’ you agree? Let’s just pray that actors like Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson become an example in Hollywood and inspire those to turn fully towards God. I admire Mel Gibson for his stance…he put his entire career in danger for God. What a good man he is.
 
One good Catholic movie does not make one a viable candidate for President…

But on the other hand, lets look at the Clintons, the Bushes and the Kennedys…politicians whose lives were lived in politics and bringing nothing but wars and scandels and the selling out of the Country. All with fancy college degrees.

Go Mel! 👍
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Hillary would make a very effective President.
Especially if she and her socialist cronies can finally get rid of the useless legislature and then she and the judiciary can finally run the country like it is supposed to be run. Take away everyone’s money and redistribute it fairly to everyone and change our motto from “Land of Opportunity” to “Land of Equal Outcome” and rename it New Europe.
 
Gene C.:
Don’t give Hillary Clinton that much credit. Not only is she not a shoo-in for the Presidency, I don’t think she has a lock on the Democratic nomination. Although the liberal news media will never let us hear it, there is a lot of anti-Clinton sentiment in the Democratic party, and a lot of big fat ego’s that want to be President.

Gene
I agree. Americans have had enough of the Clintons.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Hillary would make a very effective President.
Yes. Let’s see what she’s done so far as a Senator.

:hmmm: :whistle: :yawn:

Hmmm. I guess that would be: NOTHING

If she could do that for the country, we would be in fine shape.
 
You may not send them to public schools to learn religion. But the publics schools may be teaching something that contradicts and opposes your religion. Is that ok?

And they may NOT be as well. If I am doing my job as a parent, it should not matter… Religion should be taught at home… Children will find contradictions in every day life… not just at school. This would be non-issue if parents would be involved.
 
Jean Dixon, devout Catholic physic, born in 1918 who predicted that the Berlin Wall would be taken down and be sold as souneniers, told Ronald Reagan that he would be President, also predicted years and years ago that World War III would begin with a President from New York State. Let’s hope she was wrong on that prediction.
 
40.png
Bella3502:
And they may NOT be as well. If I am doing my job as a parent, it should not matter… Religion should be taught at home… Children will find contradictions in every day life… not just at school. This would be non-issue if parents would be involved.
As parents we are indeed primary educators of our children. For 7+ hours a day, I want my children to have the best, not a bunch of learning to their impressionable minds that I have to undo regularly. It can be done but why should we have to?
 
40.png
Della:
I seriously doubt that Mel has any such aspirations. Unlike Reagan, Gibson is not a political creature. He stands where he does because he believes that he is right, but he would be wasted in the White House. He is much better doing what he is and much more effective.
.
**Back in the 1980’s when Mel was making the Lethal Weapon movies, one could never have guessed that he would years later produce and direct the greatest Christian movie of all time. **

Maybe he might just make a great President of the United States in the future. Stranger things have happened in politics.

"He stands where he does because he believes that he is right, but he would be wasted in the White House." - But maybe that is just the kind of person we need in the White House!


http://www.igf-1.info/Pics/Mel Gibson.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top