Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Go Get 'Em Tiger

During the elections, I kept hearing, "your not voting for Kerry, you're voting against Bush." I would say over and over that was not true. I was voting for Kerry because I like his moral values. Today, he is shrugging of the disappointment of his loss and is getting back to work to continue to push the progressive agenda. Today, he plans to get back to his goal of ensuring all American children have basic health insurance. As I have always said, I could care less if two men or two women who are already living together anyway, get married or not (Bush's values). What I do care about is health insurance for the American people (Kerry's values). It is ridiculous that as wealthy and advanced we are, there are over 45 million Americans who have no access to affordable health care. At least Kerry is making a first step for kids while Bush is introducing ideas to cut Medicaid.

INTERVIEW: Kerry Resumes 'Great Job,' Pushes Health Care


Rick Moran said...

I agree with most of what you've written in this excellent and thoughtful post.

My concern is the "religion" of secularism is being pushed with as much fervor as any religious revival. Being an atheist, I could care less about this belief or that belief. But when the humanists begin to wage war against believers as I believe they are doing, I find no difference between that kind of fanaticism and Christians who claim to speak in tongues-both are a danger to freedom of expression and both should be fought with equal fervor.

Boomr said...

But the problem with fighting against secularism is that the state is SUPPOSED to be secular. It's in the very first part of the Bill of Rights. I'm certainly not in favor of the government actively suppressing religious speech by individuals, but the government should certainly be suppressing its own religious speech. If a pastor or priest gets up and talks about God, so be it -- his opinions should not be suppressed. But when a government official starts doing that, then he's crossed the line into state sponsorship of religion, and then it becomes the government thrusting its religious views on the public.

Let the individual citizens on all sides of the religious/secular debate have their voices heard -- but as soon as you start talking about what the government says, it should come down on the side of secularism every single time. Again, I offer the example of a government official who is a devout Satanist. It would certainly make most people in this country uncomfortable for that government official to be using his position to promote Satanism -- why should it be any different for Christianity?

Dingo said...

If I read Hawk's comments right, I think he may be talking about instances where the Declaration of Independence has been banned from being taught because of its reference to god (or creator). I will agree with him on this. Instances like this have gone to far. Religion has play a substantial role in our history and cannot be written out of our past. I see nothing wrong with religion entering our schools when being used in a historical sense. You cannot teach most of the worlds history without including religion in the mix. Religion has been a huge catalyst for many of the worlds most historic events. An I getting you right Hawk?