For those of you that don’t know, we have a gubernatorial race here in my good Commonwealth of Virginia. The Republican candidate is our former Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore. The Democratic candidate is the former Mayor of Richmond, Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine apparently thought a lot of the way John Kerry worked out his positions on issues: Look at the current poll numbers and look at what seems to garner you the most support in the demographic you are currently targeting and make that your position.
As a supporter of Jerry Kilgore in this election, I certainly applaud Tim Kaine taking this method. It hardly endears the candidate to the demographic he flip-flopped away from and the demographic that he flip-flopped to isn’t sure if they can trust him to keep that position. (Guns is the perfect example of this: Gun supporters are mad at him for betraying them while the NRA is hardly taking his statements at face value.) If this race follows the historical precedent of last year’s presidential election, the GOP will be happy.
I am not going to give much commentary. I am just going to quote newspapers that summarize his position and quote Tim Kaine and let him speak for himself.
Regional Refernda – 2001
“I do support the right of that region or others to hold referendums and self-fund projects… without Richmond standing in the way and blocking their ability to have the kind of quality of life they want,” said Kaine. “I don’t think it’s leadership to look them (Northern Virginians) in the eye and tell them that they don’t know as much as I do when I don’t even live in that region.” (Virginian-Pilot, October 6, 2001, emphasis added)
“‘It’s [having a General Assembly vote instead of a referendum] contrary to my belief in limited government and citizen empowerment,’ Kaine said.” (Washington Post, October 28, 2001)
Regional Refernda – Now
“Kaine is strongly opposed to tax referendums, saying elected officials should take on such hard decisions themselves. ‘Jerry Kilgore wants to find a way to govern without exerting leadership,’ said DeLacey Skinner, Kaine’s campaign press secretary.” (Virginian-Pilot, April 27, 2005)
“‘Ever since Pontius Pilate allowed the crowd to make the hard decision, people who are afraid to lead have often used popular referenda to avoid their responsibilities,’ said Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine.” (Associated Press, March 1, 2004)
Million Mom March & Gun Control – 2000
‘There is no issue in the city that is more important than gun violence,’ he said. ‘My wife said to me the other day, ‘Sometimes you align yourself with an issue, and sometimes it aligns itself with you. I can’t think of an issue I’d rather be aligned with than this.’
Kaine invited residents who back his position to send checks to City Hall. Any leftover funds will be sent either to the Million Mom March or used for an educational campaign on gun violence.
Kaine said he plans to make a significant donation from his own pocket to the fund, and he called on his fellow City Council members, some of whom criticized his use of the discretionary fund to pay for the march expenses, to do the same.
(Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 15, 2000, emphasis added)
Those in favor of gun control naturally see nothing untoward in the city subsidizing their cause, and Kaine defended the subsidy on the ground that Richmond always has supported stricter gun laws. (Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 16, 2000)
Kaine earned an “F” grade on Second Amendment issues, which according to the grading system, means he is a “True enemy of gun-owners rights. A vehement anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.” (NRA-PVF Candidate Endorsement Chart, 2001)
In 2001, Sarah Brady’s gun ban lobby (formerly Handgun Control Inc) endorsed Kaine, saying, “Tim Kaine is the clear choice” in his race for Lieutenant Governor. (11/1/01 Brady E-Action Response Network alert)
“From all three [Democrat candidates for Lieutenant Governor]: Gun control: yes.” (Virginian-Pilot, May 25, 2001)
“Councilman Timothy M. Kaine suggested that the city team up with Fairfax and Norfolk, the other major urban areas in Virginia, and push gun laws together.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 26, 1997)
“The candidates differed on little during last night’s debate, agreeing on issues ranging from abortion rights to support of gay civil unions and the need for gun control.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 25, 2001)
Million Mom March & Gun Control – Now
“The Million Mom March was not my issue. I didn’t go. That’s not my thing. But I did support the citizens who had been through a hard time by having them go up there. But I’ve never done anything to oppose the Second Amendment.” (Tim Kaine, WLNI Radio in Lynchburg, May 3, 2005)
Estate Tax – 2003
“‘Never has the General Assembly done so little for so many and so much for so few,’ Kaine added, referring particularly to the legislature’s proposed repeal of the estate tax, which will affect a few hundred people each year.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 24, 2003)
Estate Tax – Now
“Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine supports a repeal of Virginia’s estate tax as a way to help farmers and others, he told members of the Virginia Farm Bureau on Wednesday.” (Roanoke Times, December 2, 2004)
“As Governor, Tim Kaine will take steps now to save our family farms and preserve a traditional Virginia way of life.” (Tim Kaine Press Release, May 25, 2005)
General Fund Dollars for Transportation – Yes
“As Governor, Tim Kaine will keep the promise to dedicate auto insurance premium taxes to transportation, adding $966 million [from the general fund] to VDOT’s six-year construction plan.” (Tim Kaine Press Release, June 23, 2005)
General Fund Dollars for Transportation – No
“He said transportation should not be funded out of the state’s general fund, where it would compete with ‘schoolbooks and deputy sheriffs’ salaries.’” (The Washington Post, March 16, 2005)
“Kaine supports a ‘two-way lock box’ that bars commandeering transportation money for general government operations but also puts the general fund off-limits to transportation.” (The Associated Press, April 26, 2005)
“Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said that ‘paying for transportation out of the general fund is ultimately going to put transportation dollars in competition with education dollars. What you’ll end up with is money that would have gone to education going to transportation.’” (The Washington Post, April 27, 2005)
“But Kaine opposes the use of general-fund money for transportation, saying it would put roads in competition with other essential programs such as schools, public safety and health care.” (Roanoke Times & World News, May 20, 2005)
Increasing Gas Tax – Yes
On the budget, he [Tim Kaine] praised Mr. Warner’s and Mr. Chichester’s proposals, particularly the Chichester plan, which devotes money to transportation. Mr. Chichester’s plan would … increase the state gas tax from 17.5 cents per gallon to 20.5 cents per gallon…” (Washington Times, February 22, 2004)
Kaine said transportation problems – which are barely addressed in the new biennial budget – will not go away soon. One way to alleviate the funding shortage is to increase to gasoline tax. ‘Once you get through the hot lanes, the tolls, et cetera, the best way to finance it is the gas tax,’ Kaine said. (Winchester Star, July 1, 2004)
“He [Tim Kaine] also favors a modest hike in the gasoline tax to pay for new road construction.” (Bristol Herald-Courier, August 8, 2004)
“Unlike Warner, who as a candidate in 2001 promised not to raise taxes, Kaine, by suggesting conditions for a possible tax increase, appears to be giving himself room to maneuver on this traditionally perilous issue.” (”Kaine: Transportation solutions to be next task,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 22, 2005)
Increasing Gas Tax – No
“Kaine’s plan makes no mention of increasing the state’s 17.5-cent gasoline tax, an idea he previously embraced.” (Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 24, 2005)
“Democratic gubernatorial candidate Timothy M. Kaine promised yesterday to veto any new tax or fee for transportation or any increase in existing levies until at least 2009, when a constitutional amendment to lock up the state’s road fund could become law.” (Washington Post, June 24, 2005)
“Democrat Tim Kaine pledged prompt first aid Thursday to a Virginia roadways system in crisis, but said he would veto new transportation taxes for the nearly four years it would take to constitutionally shield the highway trust fund from legislative raids.” (Associated Press, June 24, 2005)
Increasing Gas Tax – Maybe
“Kaine said he would veto new road taxes approved by the legislature before the amendment was in place, but he left himself a slim amount of wiggle room by saying he might consider an interim plan by lawmakers to protect the transportation trust fund.” (Virginian-Pilot, June 24, 2005)
I am going to finish up with an op-ed from the liberal Washington Post:
The Candidate Offers Words to Waffle By
By Melanie ScarboroughAs the only state other than New Jersey that will elect a governor this year, Virginia is being watched by the nation’s politicians and pundits as a testing ground for Democrats’ latest strategy: courting Republican voters by embracing religion while assuring Democrats that such convictions don’t matter. This is a peculiar position, as the gubernatorial candidacy of Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) demonstrates.
For instance, Kaine says that his Catholic faith leads him to oppose both abortion and the death penalty but that he would not, as governor, try to thwart either practice. Why not?
Kaine’s opposition to the death penalty dates from his days as a law student. What sort of person spends his adult life campaigning against the death penalty, but — if given the power to commute death sentences — would decline to use it?
Either Kaine’s beliefs are not strongly held, or he is being disingenuous. If the latter, Virginians have been down this road before.
Recall that in 2001, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Warner ran on a platform not to raise taxes. Yet once elected, Warner proposed the largest tax increase in Virginia history. Candidate Warner supported a referendum on the sales tax in Northern Virginia; Gov. Warner characterized referendums as “extremely irresponsible.”
Warner wasn’t even true to his base. As a candidate, he pledged to “fight further efforts to chip away at [abortion] rights.” As governor, he signed legislation that banned partial-birth abortions and required parental consent before minors could undergo the procedure.
Is Kaine borrowing from Warner’s playbook? Consider these unsettling indications:
* As Richmond’s mayor, Kaine got into hot water for spending $6,500 of city funds to send a delegation to the District for the Million Mom March — which essentially was a rally for gun control. As a gubernatorial candidate, he says on his Web site that he “strongly” supports the Second Amendment and “would introduce no new gun laws as governor.”
* As lieutenant governor, Kaine supported raising the sales tax, capping the car-tax rebate, increasing state taxes by $1.4 billion and increasing the gas tax. Now he says that, if elected governor, he would push for tax relief.
* During the 2001 campaign Kaine supported a sales tax referendum in Northern Virginia. But when Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (R) proposed a referendum last year to let voters decide on another proposed tax increase, Kaine huffed, “Ever since Pontius Pilate allowed the crowd to make the hard decision, people who are afraid to lead have often used popular referenda to avoid their responsibilities.”
* As a newly elected city council member in Richmond, Kaine told a Richmond paper, “I’m a liberal and proud of it.” Today, in his radio ads, he says, “I am conservative.”
Will the real Tim Kaine please stand up?
The gubernatorial candidate seems to want to appease both camps on social issues as well. When running for lieutenant governor, his campaign literature heralded him as pro-choice. Now Kaine says he is antiabortion — but would not interfere with abortion rights.
During the 2001 campaign Kaine supported “civil benefits” for gay couples; now he says he doesn’t favor civil unions or gay marriage. Does that distinction have a difference?
Kaine also says in radio ads, “As mayor of Richmond, I cut taxes, cut crime, created jobs and built new schools,” but those claims need to be placed in context.
Until last year Richmond did not have an elected at-large mayor. The city council chooses one of its own to serve as titular mayor — a similar situation to a jury electing a foreman. Richmond’s day-to-day operation was the job of the city manager. As the District 2 representative on the council, Kaine served his turn as mayor, but he can take no more credit or blame for Richmond than any other city council member.
That is not to say that Kaine did not serve his constituents well. He served honorably both as city council member and lieutenant governor. But those roles drew on his talent for collegiality; a governor has to lead. And before deciding whether they trust him to do that, Virginians need to know exactly where Kaine stands:
Is he a tax-cutting, antiabortion, gun-rights conservative or is that campaign posturing?
Maybe Kaine finally is speaking his mind, but after Warner, Virginians must be wary of Democrats who go in for extreme makeovers.
I don’t know about you, but Tim Kaine reminds me awfully much of John Kerry. I can not support someone who does not follow his conscience but cynically changes position on moral issues depending upon the political climate.
42 Responses
June 29th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
So… Are you a gun supporter or gun control supporter?
June 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
That’s not the point. The point is: Kaine’s position is inconsistent.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Gun control is hitting what you’re aiming at, right?
*grin*
July 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Oh Paul, you are so predictable my son!
The right to ownership is a right according to our Constitution. As for us Christians, is it a right that we intend to use in the way it is intended? The second amendment is not about hunting, this is a secondary issue. Hunting is a state controlled priviledge, not a right, like driving. Ownership of firearms is a right for protection and in the event of government excesses. Why else is it under so much re-interpretation and discussion? When it is eliminated by those that want the government to be supreme instead of the people, then the Constitution will have been totally destroyed. This will probably be accomplished by the Supreme Court, so we will not be able to vote on it, just like the end of private ownership of property was destroyed recently by this same institution.
I hate to see the Constitution dying as it has it has been doing so speedily since the end of the end of the 1860’s war of northern aggression against the Confederate States of America. The Constitution has been dying and is not getting any of the resusitation that it needs and will not in all probability get such until the people of this country force the government to do so by voting the enemies of that document out of office. I fear this will not happen, there are too many special interests in both political parties.
Along with all of this is the question of whether we traditional Mennonites will or should enter the political arena or stay with our traditional position of separation of church and state? I guess that time will tell.
FYI, I will only discuss this issue and related issues with my Mennonite brethren or on Mennonite blogs that I am familiar with, I am through with discussion with other Christians of the other denominations and secular minded folks too. I understand their view and leave it to them regardless of their party of choice.
Hans, enjoyed your post on Kaine, his past words need to be fully understood to really see his political waffling in seeking acceptance by the voters of VA.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:58 pm
“the 1860’s war of northern aggression against the Confederate States of America.”
I never heard of such of war. Please expand.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:10 pm
The North refers to it as the “Civil War”. They wrote the history books; it’s their privilege. Many people don’t know this, but the Civil War was begun by Northern business owners that were trying to stem the growth of industry in the South. They were dependant on the South’s agriculture, and the South had been dependant on their industries for finished goods. But some enterprising farmers were prepared to step out into manufacturing, and hence, the Civil War. It was an economically-motivated war; slavery and other issues were only convenient excuses. I think Truthseeker once had a book on the subject.
That said, I don’t think that the slavery practiced by the South was admirable, and I’m glad that it is no longer a practice here. I remember seeing an old Errol Flynn/Ronald Reagan/ Olivia DeHavilland movie entitled “Santa Fe Trail. Errol Flynn played J.E.B. Stuart, and Reagan, George Armstrong Custer. Flynn’s character stated that the South would resolve the slavery issue itself, but pride kept it from doing so at the North’s insistence. I remember that struck me as profound even with the script writer’s benefit of looking back.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:06 pm
“economically-motivated war”
Hmmm… That sounds familiar…
July 2nd, 2005 at 12:38 am
Jeff, most wars are economically motivated in some way. Even WWII had its economic issues, no one wanted Hitler to be in control of everything!
Yes, Paul has a grasp of the reason for the War of Northern Aggression. And for some real hyprocrisy, who sold all those slaves to the southern plantation owners? Northern business men did. No slave entered this country on a ship under a Confederate flag.
The book Paul is referring to is “The South Was Right!” by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy ISBN 1-56554-024-7 currently published by Pelican Publishing Co. sixth printing 1997.
Read it, get your history straightened out. The winner in all conflicts writes the history books just as Paul said. The victor can spin the “facts” into anything that is desired. Same thing happened to all of the nationalities that Rome wiped out, Roman historians wrote the history books leaving out the losing side’s reason for the war, there by justifying Rome’s reasons.
So, I refer to this war as the War of Northern Aggression or the War for Southern Independence. It was not a “civil war” nor was it a “war between the states”, for the Confederate States of America was a formed entity and a sovereign nation which the United States of America invaded. (I never understood the term “civil war” no war is civil.) I guess the term “civil war” was used to denote that Americans fought Americans therefore it was an internal war, thus referred to as the Civil War in America.
The closest thing to a “civil war” that was fought in this country was the one we call the Revolutionary War. It was fought by English- Americans against other English- Americans. Colonial English- Americans declared their independence from England and other English-Americans wanted to stay subject to England. Those that wanted to stay English helped the British army in trying to defeat the Colonial army. It amounted to English against English with a few other nationalities thrown in for excitement.
Hope this clears up the terms I used. I do see things a little differently. {:^)
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Wow! I didn’t know that there was such serious “holocaust denial” style mindset about the Civil War. I knew there was that mindset still among hardcore hillbilly Confederates, but I didn’t know that it was still a serious option for the generally rational set.
I wasn’t alive back then, so it could all be a vast left, right, and center wing conspiracy, but I think the greatest indicator of the validity of the Civil War by Honest Abe and its slave-ending purpose is the nasty, nasty segregation/integration fights that are well documented since then. That seems to be the proof of the pudding to me.
I am young and foolish, so I may be way off base, but that’s my conclusion.
July 2nd, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Hans, get a copy of the book and read the documentation for yourself. Do not let me or anyone else TELL you anything, do your own research. Why do you accept what you have been told all of your life as the absolute truth on this matter? Did you research what you were told/taught to see if it was true? Do you really think that old honest? Abe was truly as honest as he is purported to be, he was human too. Check out his debates on slavery and his beliefs on the black races. The book the Kennedys wrote have that documentation included as well as a lot of other myth questioning documentation for your consideration.
You weren’t alive in the days of Christ either, but you believe in Him, why, is it not because you have studied and come to the acceptance of His reality, and not just because someone told you what to believe. I am not purposing this book to be absolutely true, but at least do what I did and check it out for yourself.
Added to all of this let me say that I for one see the hand of God using all the wrong that occured in the 1860’s to come out in a manner for our country’s best. I am glad for the existance of the USA as it is, but would like to see a return to the way it is suppose to be as outlined in the Constitution. This document we hold dear has been under attack since its inception by many interests mainly from the north. Those interests gained power after the elimination of the resistance that the Confederency represented, and has been in power ever since. Economy is the key to everything, it will be the power of the Antichrist. Read Revelations.
Yours in Christ, TS
July 3rd, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Hans, I assume tha you are very busy checking out your sources on American history, but I wanted to point out one other thing about this concerning something you said:
“I wasn’t alive back then, so it could all be a vast left, right, and center wing conspiracy, but I think the greatest indicator of the validity of the Civil War by Honest Abe and its slave-ending purpose is the nasty, nasty segregation/integration fights that are well documented since then. That seems to be the proof of the pudding to me.
Honest Abe as a test of validity? He did not want to free the slaves, and you can check it out for yourself. I just want to inform you that the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed the slaves in the “rebellious” states and not in the states of the Union that still had slaves, i.e. Maryland and some others. Check it out!
Also, the right of secession was a right under the Constitution since its inception. Honest Abe did not accept that right of the Southern states to withdraw from the Union. The secession was about states rights, slavery became an issue later in order to stop England from helping the South in the war effort. By issuing the Eman. Proc. Abe managed to stop English aid to the South.
Whether the South was wrong or right is something for continued debate. As I said in the last comment, it was apparently God’s will for the Union to advance into the future whole, but that does not mean that the North was the only right party in this conflict. Do not buy into the “hardcore hillbilly Confederate” image that many try to stamp on this history. Yes, there are some racist, bigoted, and wrong-headed Southerners among us that will never really understand the reasons for the War for Southern Independance anymore than the average American. It won’t hurt anyone to know the positions from both sides of this conflict. The legacy of that conflict still underlie the current separation of “red and blue” states to this day, and states rights is that issue that we in the South wanted to secure back then.
Thanks for reading my poor scribblings in defense of the South. May God bless the USA. TS
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
“Many people don’t know this, but the Civil War was begun by Northern business owners that were trying to stem the growth of industry in the South.”
Yes. That war really stemmed Southern industry. When the South needed bullets, cannons, railroad engines, shoes, clothes, war supplies, etc the North nicely sold it to them. It didn’t stimulate a Southern industrial explosion necessary to support such a war. (Please note sarcasm.)
Methinks there’s a good reason “Many people don’t know this.”
I think the title “War of Northern Aggression” is entirely appropriate. Those Yankees clearly started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter. Oh, wait…
“No slave entered this country on a ship under a Confederate flag.”
That’s because before the South tried to secede, Southern ships obviously flew the American flag. While they were trying to secede, there was a Union blockade.
“The victor can spin the ‘facts’ into anything that is desired. Same thing happened to all of the nationalities that Rome wiped out, Roman historians wrote the history books leaving out the losing side’s reason for the war, there by justifying Rome’s reasons.”
True to some extent. I don’t think this is a case of it. As you know (from correctly stating Rome’s brutality) that the facts eventually come out. If your version of events was correct, it would have come out by now. If the war was, as you claim, economically motivated, there is no further reason for the “North” to pretend that it was slavery motivated. None of those Northern businessmen are alive. There are tons of independent historians that have studied, restudied, and pored over the pertinent documents and records. If even as few as 30% of those historians believed as you do, I might give your theory merit. They don’t.
With any crime or misdeed, one looks for motivation. With this alleged cover-up, there is none. There is no reason to keep history wrong to protect anyone. All the people affected are dead.
The economic imbalance (South being agricultural, North being industrial) was balanced and is in balance today.
“The closest thing to a ‘civil war’ that was fought in this country was the one we call the Revolutionary War. It was fought by English- Americans against other English- Americans.”
Baloney! The red-coats weren’t English-Americans! They were English! The Hessians weren’t English or American. Neither were the French.
“Colonial English-Americans declared their independence from England and other English-Americans wanted to stay subject to England. Those that wanted to stay English helped the British army in trying to defeat the Colonial army.”
Very few in proportion. The Tories fielded “perhaps 50,000 men” (this number is not necesarily limited to the Revolutionary War) and the patriots “250,000″.
Nomenclature (if you leave out the factually incorrect “War of Northern Agression”) is really an unsubstansive portion of the debate. Perhaps the most accurate is “War Between the States” because it is factually correct and avoids “Civil War” which is on the verge of being inaccurate (it wasn’t civilians fighting, they were trained, however poorly and nominally, soldiers) but you describe the reason for it being called the Civil War very well: “I guess the term ‘civil war’ was used to denote that Americans fought Americans therefore it was an internal war, thus referred to as the Civil War in America.”
“So, I refer to this war as the War of Northern Aggression or the War for Southern Independence. It was not a ‘civil war’ nor was it a ‘war between the states’, for the Confederate States of America was a formed entity and a sovereign nation which the United States of America invaded.” and “Also, the right of secession was a right under the Constitution since its inception.”
Not true! Please quote to me from the Consitution where this was an enumerated right. (I read thru the entire unammended and the ammended version to be sure and found nothing even close in either versions.) As a matter of fact, the Constitution says on the contrary, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” (emphasis added) The North was only following the law.
“Hans, get a copy of the book and read the documentation for yourself. Do not let me or anyone else TELL you anything, do your own research.”
I hardly qualify reading one book by an author who, to put it kindly, is a bit unusual in his thinking as research.
“Why do you accept what you have been told all of your life as the absolute truth on this matter?”
I don’t. I just spent this afternoon doing research on it. However when I hear it from my fundamentalist Christian, southern, ACE history curriculum in school, from eyewitness accounts by Mennonites who lived in VA during the Civil War, from all the credible history books out there, from my parents, and from the research I myself have done, and they all line up, I start to think that just maybe that that is the correct version of events. Ya know?
“Did you research what you were told/taught to see if it was true?”
Yes.
“Added to all of this let me say that I for one see the hand of God using all the wrong that occured in the 1860’s to come out in a manner for our country’s best. I am glad for the existance of the USA as it is, but would like to see a return to the way it is suppose to be as outlined in the Constitution.”
Amen! It just doesn’t have much to do with the Civil War.
“This document we hold dear has been under attack since its inception by many interests mainly from the north.”
It is a mistake to posit that ideological divides follow geographical boundaries. Kansas, which is a bedrock of Conservatism, has a Democrat for a governor and Jeff for a socialist.
“Those interests gained power after the elimination of the resistance that the Confederency represented, and has been in power ever since.”
I suppose that explains why President Bush (who is in favor of returning the Constitution’s interpertation to the original intent of the framer’s and would line up with your (I would guess from dialoging with you) beliefs.) is in power.
“Also, the right of secession was a right under the Constitution since its inception. Honest Abe did not accept that right of the Southern states to withdraw from the Union.”
Again: Please show me. I think you were quite misled on this issue.
“The secession was about states rights, slavery became an issue later in order to stop England from helping the South in the war effort.”
Oh really? I thought it was for economic reasons.
Confederates like to say the issue was “state’s rights” because that sounds better than “the ‘right’ to own another human being as a slave.” Yes, it was about state’s “rights”; it was about enforcing that states did not have the right to legislate slavery’s legality if the federal government legislated its illegality.
“Yes, there are some racist, bigoted, and wrong-headed Southerners among us that will never really understand the reasons for the War for Southern Independance”
Yes. It’s frustrating that those that went to war to secede from the South didn’t share your noble reasons for doing so, isn’t it? They just didn’t get the real reason for the war.
–
Sorry if I waxed sarcastic at times. It’s nothing personal. I know that you are an honest “Truthseeker.” The reason I may sound a bit harsh is because I see the crux of the matter (please read “Around the Crux”’s blog description and note careful choice of words to convey a bit of self-disparaging.) so clearly and those who don’t, despite the clear facts, frustrate me.
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Another thing: Please note the definition of civil war.
July 3rd, 2005 at 6:15 pm
OK Hans, I am not the debater that you are, and I can only speak with the words that I know and methods that I have picked up in the last half year on these blogs. I do admit that it is not a real issue with me today really how all of this history really played out and have said that it is good that it all did come to the position that it has. Suffer it for now that we disagree with each other on this issue and what our personal research has revealed to us. Aside from the ugly slavery issue, I do like the Southern concept of a smaller central government that was of more importance then and original with the Constitution. I also believe that the slavery issue would have been rectified in any case as did many progressive Southerners back then.
I will re-read all that you have said and gladly try in the future to assimilate your lessons in communication during debate. I would, however allow that in these “discussions/debates” that we refrain from sarcastic retorts as they do not represent Christian attitudes and only builds resistance to future discussion/debate and I do accept your apology. If I have posited any such attitudes, I apologize to you and your readers as well. Thank you for your diligence in response, I like a man that can do his homework and ability to bring it on. Later dude! TS
July 4th, 2005 at 10:11 am
“I would, however allow that in these “discussions/debates” that we refrain from sarcastic retorts as they do not represent Christian attitudes and only builds resistance to future discussion/debate”
You’re right and once again, I apologize.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
I really would like to have this “constitutional right to secede” thing cleared up. It seems to me this is a simple yes or no issue that won’t be difficult to ascertain. Where were you coming from with that?
If there was some sort of Constitutional right to secede, that totally changes the metrics of the equation.
I would like some expansion from you on where this concept is found.
Thanks!
July 4th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Hmm. Here comes the history major. This is an interesting debate that I’ve actually had recently with several different people. TS is right on some major points.
Abe Lincoln freed the (confederate only) slaves basically to keep England, who had economic interests in the south, from joining the war. This was at the time that the Royal Navy was slowly eradicating the western slave trade.
The war was basically about the right to secession. The reasons for the South’s wish to secede included, but were not limited to, slavery. While the Constitution itself makes secession fairly impossible, several confederation leanings states did include in their protocols of ratification the right to secede. A right belonging to one state probably belongs to all, meaning, Lincoln was wrong, and the South was right about secession.
That being said, I’m actually appreciative of the fact that the federal government overstepped its bounds, and we all know that it was necessary a second time, during the 1960’s, for the federal government to force the South to treat black people like human beings.
I also don’t like calling it the war of northern aggression, as it was the South that started it, and calling it that swings too far the other way. I usually call it the War between the States.
And I know it’s a little late, but on the main topic, how did Kerry contradict himself like this Kaine obviously is?
July 4th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
“I actually did vote for the 87 Billion before I voted against it”
July 4th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Interesting thoughts, Kerry question aside.
I mean, on the Kerry thing, there were a lot of really obvious things there… I have a DVD that has exclusively vid clips of him talking and images of quotes from newspapers. It’s hilarious! He contradicts himself again and again! My little bro’s and sis’s were laughing and laughing at him. They wanted to watch it again!
July 4th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
He actually voted for the war before he voted against it. Which means he voted to allow the use of force in cooperation with the U.N., then voted against funding for the war in protest of Bush’s go it alone thingy.
July 4th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I’ve never heard such a ridiculous assertation! Even places like the Democratic Underground aren’t crass enough to try to say that (well, maybe they are on second thot).
The resolution he endorsed (along with the rest of the Senate) authorized the use of force against Iraq if they were in material breach of the UN resolution, which they undisputably were. There was no condition that the UN had to act for the US to act.
But the above is not related to the $87 billion appropriations bill. That was a totally separate thing. Separate bill. Separate vote. You’re getting mixed up.
July 4th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Re “crass”: No personal offense, but I have zero tolerance for socialists. They just don’t make sense. I hope to convert you and Jeff. *grin*
July 4th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Since we’re on the subject of contradictions anyway, allow me to rant about an issue I’ve debated a lot recently.
The religious right has joined in wholeheartedly in the “flip-flop” Kerry bashing. Hans, since I assume you consider yourself a member of this group, please explain to me these issues that I see as inconsistent:
Disclaimer – I’m speaking of the religious right as a group. I know not a right-wing Christians act this way.
Sanctity of human life – The religious right argues passionately against abortion, but unabashedly supports the Iraq war. How is killing an unborn child different than killing an innocent Iraqi?
Tolerance – Jesus Christ taught that his followers must love their neighbors (and their enemies) but the religious right practices open intolerance (and in many cases, hatred) against homosexuals.
And how can a group that has the largest percentage of divorced/remarried couples in the U.S. argue against homosexuals because of “moral values?”
Drugs – Why is it that being a drug addict is a moral failure and a crime, unless you’re a conservative talk show host, in which case it’s a disease and you need our prayers for your healing?
Poverty – Jesus Christ taught that those with the means should help the poor. Why is it that the religious right is so violently opposed to any kind of social equalization?
Legal system – Why are activist judges bad, unless they rule in favor of your pet cause? (Terri Shaivo)
July 4th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
“Sanctity of human life – The religious right argues passionately against abortion, but unabashedly supports the Iraq war. How is killing an unborn child different than killing an innocent Iraqi?”
The vast majority of innocents in Iraq are not getting killed by the U.S. They are getting killed by insurgents. The people that the U.S. is fighting in Iraq are those whose greatest wish is “Death to America.”
“Tolerance – Jesus Christ taught that his followers must love their neighbors (and their enemies) but the religious right practices open intolerance (and in many cases, hatred) against homosexuals.”
I don’t. J.B. is a good example. I don’t hate him. My co-workers work with him every day. I don’t believe he should have the “right” to get “married” to a person that is of the same sex. That is not marriage. That’s perversion.
“And how can a group that has the largest percentage of divorced/remarried couples in the U.S. argue against homosexuals because of ‘moral values?’”
That is something that should change. As for me, my divorce (and marriage) rate is 0%. I will keep it that way (the divorce part, not the marriage part) all my life.
“Drugs – Why is it that being a drug addict is a moral failure and a crime, unless you’re a conservative talk show host, in which case it’s a disease and you need our prayers for your healing?”
There’s a difference between someone who gets hooked on prescription painkillers while being legitimately prescribed by a doctor and someone who smoke pot for thrills. I have sympathy for anyone (be it Howard Dean or Rush Limbaugh) who inadvertently gets hooked. I have a problem with those that go looking for it for the sole purpose of pleasure.
“Poverty – Jesus Christ taught that those with the means should help the poor. Why is it that the religious right is so violently opposed to any kind of social equalization?”
The key word there is “those [people]” and “should.” It’s the people’s not the government’s place to administer charity. It’s a “should” thing; it’s voluntary, not coerced.
“Legal system – Why are activist judges bad, unless they rule in favor of your pet cause? (Terri Shaivo)”
I supported Terri’s husband’s right to take his wife off of life support. He was the closest of kin. It was his descision to make.
On the broader issue of judicial activism:
If you look at the Constitution and read it for what it is, there is no possible way that you can read “a right to kill your baby as long as it’s still in the womb.” It’s absurd. If you look at the Constitution and read it for what it is, there is no possible way that you can read “a mandate to have no religious observance on public property or carried out by government.” As long as the government doesn’t give preference to one religion over another, it’s all right. And plus, it says “establishment!” Not display-a-little-bit-of-history-about-it! It’s absurd.
When judicial activists make wrongheaded rulings based on their personal opinions (Roe v. Wade) they change the status quo. When another judge changes it back, that isn’t judicial activism (though the left would like to portray it as such); that’s just reversing a wrong ruling!
July 5th, 2005 at 12:31 am
First, readers, be forewarned. I haven’t learned the art of stating all my points/beliefs very succinctly. So I may ramble a bit. Hans, zap this thing if it’s too long!
Jeff: Thanks for bringing a “few” of “our” inconsistencies to light. Every person probably has some inconsistencies, but we need to do what we can to minimize them in our own lives first. The best witness is always a consistent one. FYI, I’m coming from basically the same background as Hans….i.e. conservative Mennonite.
My number one problem with most of the “Christian right” is their propensity to favor a theocratic form of government. I don’t want that. A Christian lives his life according to his beliefs, and convinces others he’s right through the Holy Spirit and a defense/explanation of his own beliefs. This does not happen through making laws that force people to act like a Christian. The New Testament is really based on a person’s inner being, not on outward performing.
RE: sanctity of human life & tolerance
Hans, I have some problems with your response. Also, it seems you’ve been a consistent supporter of the war. I have a problem with that, also. You sidestepped Jeff’s critique by saying “a vast majority of innocents in Iraq …. are getting killed by insurgents”. That’s beside the point. American troops are still killing (that’s their job) and a lot of “Christians” are supporting that bloodshed.
One of the most important verses pertaining to how a Christian should think about war, retaliation, fighting, etc. is John 18:36. Jesus was being questioned by Pilate, prior to his (Jesus’) death. This was involving the saving or losing of His own life.
For an interesting read, check out Mark Twain’s “War Prayer”
A personal sanctity of life issue: Last year on August 1st, we (my wife & I) buried a son (named Hans) who lived 2 hours after a natural birth. We found out, during a regular ultrasound at twenty weeks, that there were a few problems with the baby. We were given the option of doing some extensive testing. However, our doctor didn’t think that even if we knew exactly what the problems was, there was anything that could be done about it. He basically would have recommended “terminating” the pregnancy. Needless to say we didn’t do that. Hans was born naturally at 36 weeks. We didn’t do any resuscitation of any sort. No oxygen, no water, no food. Basically, there was nothing to do because Hans’ lungs were not developed properly. I realize this is a little different than the Terry Shaivo case, but I agree with Hans M. The decision was the husband’s, not the parents. And I was disappointed how the case was hijacked by people trying to get their point/agenda across. About abortion….I think any taking of life is wrong. Abortion, murder, war, euthanasia, etc. But I’m a Christian so I live my life according to the Bible. If you aren’t a Christian, you live your life by whatever code of morals you or your country’s laws dictate. I’ll pray for you, love you, cry for you, and try to convince you, but until then you shouldn’t be required by law to live like a Christian.
Hans, I also have a problem with this:
The marriage part isn’t perversion. The act/attitude is the perversion, to a Christian at least. (See above point) And I agree with Jeff, if you think divorce/remarriage is O.K., you’re probably undermining the “institution” of marriage more than two gay people who are getting married. Again, in this country we don’t base laws on our religious beliefs. In fact, this country was founded partly to combat that attitude. Our laws should be enacted to protect the citizens from themselves and each other, but not to make Christians out of them.
RE: narcotics
Again, see my previous points about lawmaking. If you want to argue about whether or not drugs should be legal, argue with facts/data about how misusing drugs affects our society, not whether or not the Bible condemns it. I think a Christian shouldn’t misuse tobacco, alcohol, drugs, narcotics, or food (overeating). They all follow the same principle. But a non-Christian bases his beliefs on something other than the Bible. Just my personal opinion….. Legalize marijuana, etc. Use the money being spent on the “drug war” somewhere else. The crime rate is a moot point, true, legalization could make the crime rate go up, more zonked out criminal doing stupid things, but you eliminate all the crime associated with the narcotics underworld….because you eliminate that whole “gangsta” culture.
RE: poverty
Idealistically, socialism and communism may be more “Biblical” methods of governing, especially pertaining to those issues you pointed out, Jeff. But that’s idealistically. It seems both of those methods tend to lead to dictatorships (I’m not saying always). And dictatorships are usually trouble for most societies. Capitalism is not Biblical if you say it’s root is making you and your life better, usually at any cost….including the cost of others around you. But as you look at what this young country has done for the world (yes there are bad points, but I’m generalizing), it seems that capitalism promotes “progress” (inventions, discoveries, etc.) more than most other forms of government. Also, I think Hans’ has a good point:
The people should take the responsibility to help the poor, educate the children, etc. When the people don’t do it, the churches try. When the people and the churches don’t do it, the government tries. I think each step away from the people heads downhill, in quality, quantity, efficiency, etc. Every form of government has it’s weaknesses and strengths, and harping on one form’s weaknesses and another’s strengths doesn’t change what actually seems to work well. I think the U.S. has a lot of great points, ask people who have lived in other countries, then lived here.
One last thing, a plug if I may. Check out the Fair Tax. Note: The following sentences are written entirely from an economic standpoint, not a Biblical one. I don’t know if it’s (the Fair Tax idea) classified as socialistic or capitalistic, but I think it could do wonders for our economy and standard of living. I always thought the graduated income tax is about as un-capitalistic as you can get. Why endorse personal gain and success, only to punish gain and success by taxation? Find a way to run this country without taxing economic success, personal or business (which is ultimately personal also). Check out Mark Lowry for an interesting article about taxes and tax cuts.
O.K., I’m done. If you read this whole thing, you have too much time on your hands (don’t ask about writing it, which takes way longer!!). Now get outside and do something profitable!
P.S. Hans, a “preview” somehow would be nice. I’m not sure if all my tags will work properly. I did “copy-n-paste” from OpenOffice. Sometimes that makes tags goofy.
July 5th, 2005 at 1:07 am
You said:
I ask:
Is sobriety (for example) merely a virtue? Why is sobriety “voluntary” if you’re celebrating Independence Day at your home, but “coerced” when you’re driving down the road? Is it because you’re bringing harm to people when you’re drunk? But in reality, when does drunkenness not bring harm to people?
Similarly, are you not harming the poor by disregarding them and letting them fight a losing battle? When does capitalistic greed benefit humankind?
Finally, why shouldn’t we enforce charity? If we don’t enforce virtue, what do we enforce? Why is it better to let man decide and never have him do it than to make man’s decision for him and help him with it?
Enlighten me.
July 5th, 2005 at 1:27 am
A. Riehl, I posted my comment before I noticed yours. I do agree that the church (as a body, not as an institution) is best equipped to deal with poverty, and I also agree that changing hearts is more effective than enforcing laws.
But I still have some questions. Every law can be enforced at several levels. The individual, by shaping his worldview to truth, can enforce the law within his heart. Or, the individual can leave his worldview unchanged and merely try to keep his actions in check. The individual’s peers and non-government authority can take responsibility to enforce the law, keeping the individual out of trouble. Finally, the government can take responsibility to enforce the law using punishments such as fines or imprisonment. Of course, the individual is always ultimately responsible to God.
Here is the question that remains: Why is charity left to the individual, but drunk driving (as an example) enforced by the government?
July 5th, 2005 at 2:04 am
A.C.
In this country you can do a lot of things in your home that you can’t do in public. You assume responsibility for your behavior in a private setting. There is a balance between freedom and safety.
I would agree that since we allow drunkenness and smoking in private, to be consistent we should also allow use of narcotics in private (a private residence). Yes, they all harm. Even in small or “normal” dosages. But somewhere freedom is involved… including freedom to make mistakes, harm one’s self, and I guess, even be “greedy”.
First off, define poor. I’m assuming you mean in this country. Because most of our nation’s “poor” are nowhere near the world’s definition of poor. (And guess who’s operating in a capitalistic society.) Secondly, a lot of our nation’s “poor” are not motivated enough to become unpoor. They would rather complain about “injustices” etc. than take responsibility for their lives and become productive. I realize there are many sad cases… single parents, debt caused by health issues, disabilities, etc. But a lot can happen in a person’s life if he truly wants change, and does everything in his power to bring about that change. For those who truly need help, it is our responsibility to do what we can.
When the “greed” leads to discoveries/inventions that benefit the discoverer/inventor and the rest of humankind. Idealistically, we should all strive to make discoveries, invent inventions, etc. that benefit humankind, while forgetting any benefit for ourselves. However, I feel that that doesn’t happen very often, unfortunately. So, set out a personal reward (individual success) to things that benefit humankind.
You ask,
Fair question…. Here’s one in return. Who is going to do the “make man’s decision for him”? Other people?
Also, you won’t “help him with it”, you’re proposing to force him to do it. You take some edge off the drive for success if a body knows x% will be taken from him (especially if it’s on a graduated scale.) Without that success, less will be given to help those who need it.
I’m assuming the government would do the “enforce charity” thing. That would be a gigantic waste, as inefficient as the government does things. You’d probably end up the same as if you’d leave it voluntary. Can anybody find some numbers relating to the amount of help given to the needy by a capitlaistic society versus a socialistic or communistic society? The numbers might not help my point, but I’m curious.
Yes, we should help the poor. But no amount of help will eradicate the classification “poor”. The classification just moves up. We’re already moving that classification up for us.
FYI, We’re (my wife & I + one son) a household with a single person income that at the current time isn’t very high; the government would put us in the class of “poor”. I’ve been to countries where the majority of the people in that country have much much less than we do. I surely don’t consider myself poor.
And if I don’t shut up and get to sleep, so I can wake up and go to work in this capitalistic society, I might have a no-person income!
July 5th, 2005 at 10:40 am
A.C.
I also posted my comments before I saw your last post. So my ramblings are in response to your first comments, which I thought were directed to me.
If you want to enforce charity (I guess you mean charitable giving of money), are you going to also enforce the giving of time to help people? Where do we stop? Where do we stop with any government involvement? (I think most lawmakers like to think nowhere!)
And as contradictory as this sounds, I don’t think mandatory hand-outs (or forced charity) will fix our “poor problem”. There will always be a class of “poor”. Plus, everybody (giver & reciever) feel much better when the giving is voluntary instead of mandatory.
July 5th, 2005 at 10:46 am
…so is Jeff. But thanks for making it clear.
That really highlights the way I feel about it. It is the armed forces’ job to protect our country. My support of the war is not a personal support. I don’t beleive that it would be right for me or any Christian to kill anyone. I believe it is the correct thing for the government to do. I think it is in the interests of our country to fight in Iraq.
Some may think that it’s inconsistent to be too “cowardly”* to fight, but yet support the war in an intellectual sense. Basically this is my situation: I don’t believe a Christian should fight. I believe the government is ordained of God to fight and “protect the righteous.” I think the government is doing the best thing for the country by fighting in Iraq.
It’s hard to stand idly by and stay silent when liberals bash the war effort when IMHO the liberals aren’t making sense and when IMHO the war makes sense. Maybe I should just avoid talking about the war to avoid apparent inconsistencies? I would like more feedback on this. I am young and foolish and learning and want to learn.
I agree with you that homosexuality is a perversion by itself. But same-sex marriage is a perversion as well. It’s simply not marriage. It’s never been marriage. You don’t need to be a Christian to see that. If it needs to be civil unions (I don’t support that from a personal standpoint, but it might make sense from a keeping-the-government-regulating-what-they’re supposed-to-regulate standpoint.) then that’s one thing, but “same-sex marriage” just plain doesn’t make sense. It’s redefining marriage into something that it is not.
Basically the reason marijuana is outlawed but alcohol is not (remember, it was at one point) is because so many people drink. It wouldn’t be practical to outlaw it. I think Jeff (and more than Jeff, the nurse (forget his name; from KS) and paramedic Caleb) has convinced me to legalize marijuana. But the harder drugs are on a whole different level. They are ridiculously addictive. They are terribly destructive. (I suppose it would result in greater natural selection.) So basically my argument for regulating hard drugs is this: Nicotine and alcohol are addictive and bad for your health and in the case of alcohol intoxicating, but they don’t approach the level of hard drugs. Hard drugs take it to a whole ‘nother level.
I disagree with that. In the Bible where it talks about “community of goods” etc, it is talking about a group of believers, not a government system. Our country is not composed of Christians. If every single person in our country would be a dedicated Christian, the “community of goods” (i.e. socialism) would probably work. Nevertheless, socialism is never advocated in the Bible for a government, only for a church community.
A. Riehl: On the rest of the poverty portion of your post, I agree with you and you said it very well!
Re: Preview
I will look into it.
* Please note that I love my country and would be willing to risk my life for its good. (I would be willing to do such tasks as fire-jumping, etc.) I just don’t believe as a Christian that I am supposed to kill anybody.
July 5th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Since we’re wildly offtopic anyway, could we have some discussion about whether it is right for a Christian to smoke pot?
July 5th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
I’m sure if it would be all right, you would be the first to do so. *grin*
My view would be that a Christian shouldn’t smoke pot for the same reason that a Christian shouldn’t drink: The Bible calls drunkards and winebibbers, fools.
Intoxication is not recommended by the Bible. (To put it mildly.)
It’s also damaging to the health and we are to take care of our bodies because they are “the temple of the holy spirit.”
July 5th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Drinking is NEVER condemned in the Bible. Drunkenness is harshly condemned. There is a huge difference.
Yes, both alcohol and cannabis are health hazards. So are potato chips and pizza. And skydiving. It’s all a matter of where you draw the line.
July 5th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
I never said it was.
The reason that Christians don’t (or shouldn’t) drink is because alcohol is addictive. It is hard to drink and not get drunk. IMHO (and the opinion of many other Christians) it is best to avoid drinking because of the ease with which one falls into drunkeness when drinking. It is flirting with danger, IMHO.
“Avoid all appearance of evil.”
There was an interesting discussion over at the by-log about that verse. I like particularly what one commenter said:
Note: Please see context for approval to go to drunken parties.
July 5th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
According to NHTSA, it takes an adult male 5 beers (approx. 1/2 gallon) within 2 hours to reach the legal limit.
It’s not hard to drink and stay sober.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Hans,
NOT
Thanks for clearing some things up a few comments back.
RE: Jeff, – I thought he was some kind of “raving moonbat”!
I would probably agree with your position:
Although there is much room for debate (obviously!), and my “libertarian” streak says don’t try to fight other people’s wars for them. However, it doesn’t matter… my opinion on this matter isn’t going to make the current situation any different.
Marriage as defined by whom? If you mean God/Bible, that’s right. I agree 100%. Marriage defined by God is “one man and one woman for life”. Anything else (including divorce/remarriage) is wrong. I don’t see how people can deny that. However, if it’s the government’s definition of marriage, we talking something different. It doesn’t matter if it’s “never been”. Lot’s of things that “never were” are now. God’s Word is absolute, never changes. Government terms and laws change all the time.
The only possible downside that I see to same-sex marriage that could affect me or my children, is that I think the children (however they got there) in a same-sex marriage will be adversely affected in ways we might never know (until it’s too late) However, the same can be said for children in a divorce/remarriage situation. I don’t think that allowing same-sex marriage will increase the rate of homosexuality, so that isn’t a valid arguement against it.
Hans, I’m open to reason here…. Give me some better ideas than “it’s always been that way”, and I’ll think about it. I’m not totally convinced that there’s not a problem with the government making marriage applicable to same-sex couples, but so far I don’t see it.
Again, let me reiterate. I think homosexuality is wrong, is a choice, and can be overcome. I think same-sex marriage is wrong and so is divorce/remarriage. I’m still sorting out what I think the government’s responsibility is in it.
RE: socialism, communism, etc. – Hans, I’m not defending myself here, I’m wondering…. Is there any government structure advocated in the Bible?
Capitalism endorses personal responsibility, which is a Biblical principle….
Capitalism endorses “greed”, which is not a Biblical principle…
I don’t know that the Bible endorses any specific government structure. I do think that the U.S. government structure is pretty good. One simple thing…. the amount of corruption in government employees. I’m not saying the U.S. is perfect, but in quite a lot of other countries, you can’t get the government to respond unless it’s with a bribe. I’m generalizing, not saying absolutely…
On the subject of “forced charity”… I’d like A.C. to read this.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Oh, I forgot… back to the original subject. Everybody can be flagged for “flip-flopping”..
Here’s one problem with Kerry. Why would you take an anti-war (Iraq) position, while claiming you know all about war because you “got three Purple Hearts”? (Whether or not they were legit…!)
You’re saying, “Vote for me because I have war experience, then I’ll get us out of this (Iraq) war, so my war experience will be worthless. I should vote for Kerry because he has experience in something he’s not going to need experience in! Whatever…..
July 7th, 2005 at 12:21 am
A.R. – RE: forced charity.
Read this.
For it’s wealth, the U.S. really gives a pretty pitiful amount of foreign aid.
The Center for Global Development ranked the U.S. 19th out of 21 countries in its foreign aid policy. You can pull out the old “liberal bias” argument if you like, but go back and look at that stat sheet I linked to. The U.S. ranks near the bottom on the amount of per capita foreign aid it gives.
And which countries give the most foreign aid? Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands…
Another interesting note. 30% of U.S. foreign aid goes to Israel… Seems strange.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:22 am
Jeff,
O.K., so the article I linked to was reporting on dollar amount instead of per capita amount. At least the dollar amount sounded good!!
According to your link, the U.S. is 4th out of 21 in per capita private giving. Why is that number inverse of the government aid per capita?
Perhaps because this data is for 2002, and the U.S. government had some of it’s own aid to attend to. Like the handouts for Sept. 11th “victims”…. Just kidding!! I would say, however, that I think one year is not a long enough span of time to collect fair and accurate data on something like foreign aid.
Thanks for those the link to those figures, Jeff. I did say:
I didn’t realize that high a percentage of our foreign aid goes to Isreal…. In what year was that?
Why do you say “seems strange”? I would ask, “Why does that much go to Isreal?” Do I think Isreal needs it? No, but that’s purely off the top of my head. So are we benefiting from it some how? If so, how?
Lots of things “seem strange”. But instead of conjuring up weird, imaginative reasons, it would serve us well to find the actual reasons. And no, I don’t know how I would do that in this situation… so I guess we’ll just have to “conjure up weird, imaginative reasons”!!
July 12th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
hi everyone! i am also a conservative mennonite, and love to debatE!!!
id like to start up the “civil” war debate again, but dont have time now. maybe tommorow, hopefully soon.
later,
July 12th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Feel free to do so when you get the chance.
July 13th, 2005 at 1:51 am
“I also don’t like calling it the war of northern aggression, as it was the South that started it, and calling it that swings too far the other way. I usually call it the War between the States.” Jadon Nisly
Hans, et al, sorry I have not been back to this thread, I was not aware that things were continuing on without me!
To Jadon, I do not agree with the term “war between the states” for the simple reason that the war was between two distinct entities; a southern government and a northern government. If you do not think that “war of northern aggression” is appropriate, then maybe the “war for southern independence” would be more truthful and indicative of the conflict. This is the discription that the authors of the book that I mentioned used in their referral to the conflict that you call the war between the states. The term I used originally came from a more radical individual and I use it more in jest. I apologize if it offended anyone. Let me state too that slavery is offensive to me. Human life is to be considered sacred by all Christians, since it was created by God in His own image.
I do acknowledge that I am an unreconstructed Southerner in my head and a Christian in my heart, which prefers southern culture to northern culture, but will cross the Mason Dixon line occasionally, only to return south post haste. {:^) That said, I re-state that I accept that God in His infinite wisdom chose that the south would not become free of the union in the 1860’s, since He knows the end from the beginning in all of history and I do not doubt this figures into His end time plans.
To Jadon Nisly, thanks for the support on my statements on why the north/south conflict occured.
Hans, when I said that the slaves brought into this country never came in under a Confederate flag; I meant that it was due to the fact that all slavery importation ceased in the USA on Jan. 1, 1808, thus no ship of any nation could import slaves into the USA. All slaves originally brought into this country, after the formation of the USA, were brought in by Northern business interests in cooperation with Southern plantation owners, creating a mutual tradgy in our history. Also, the South never had the time or money to reopen that trade and they would have had to fight the British Navy if they had, because the British were trying to abolish the slave trade since 1807, giving the US government the incentive to do the same in 1808 to preclude war with England.
“This document we hold dear has been under attack since its inception by many interests mainly from the north.” (TS quote)
“It is a mistake to posit that ideological divides follow geographical boundaries. Kansas, which is a bedrock of Conservatism, has a Democrat for a governor and Jeff for a socialist.” (Hans M. answer)
The geography issue here is only a coincidence because of the differences in many factors between the North and South. I said it was the business interests of people in the North not the geological boundries that were the antagonists here, I am saying that the ideological enemies of the Constitution (and the South) happened to live MAINLY in the North, just the way it was.
“Yes. It’s frustrating that those that went to war to secede from the South didn’t share your noble reasons for doing so, isn’t it? They just didn’t get the real reason for the war.” (Hans M. quote)
I never said anywhere in my views, of the Southern desire to secede, that they were noble. I only see the issue of states rights as the primary issue that gave the right of the South to secede from the Union as Jadon pointed out:
“The war was basically about the right to secession. The reasons for the South’s wish to secede included, but were not limited to, slavery. While the Constitution itself makes secession fairly impossible, several confederation leanings states did include in their protocols of ratification the right to secede. A right belonging to one state probably belongs to all, meaning, Lincoln was wrong, and the South was right about secession.” (Jadon Nisly quote)
As far as Honest Abe is concerned, I share these quotes of his:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races–that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people: and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races….I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Abraham Lincoln as cited in the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858″ edited by R.W. Johannsen, Oxford University Press, 1965, pp. 162-163)
In a debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln made the following statements on geological separation of white and black similar to the practice in our current history as seen in South Africa:
“Such separation if effected at all, must be effected by colonization:….what colonization most needs is a hearty will….Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interests to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” (Abraham Lincoln, “A. Lincoln Speeches, Letters, and State Papers”, vol. I, p.458.)
I want to close this with a comment by Dr. Grady McWhiney as quoted in the book by the Kennedys on page 15 of “The South was Right”:
“What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heros and ideals.” (Grady McWhiney, Journal of Mississippi History, “Jefferson Davis the Unforgiven”, vol.XLII, May 1980, p. 124)
We, today, cannot truly understand the past with our current morality and mindset. The morality and mindset of those in the great conflict most call the Civil War is past and foriegn to us. My interest in this issue and its debate is for understanding into the total history that has led to the decline of our Constitution as the basis of our Republic (not democracy as most suppose). If you do not agree with me, fine and dandy, go in peace, it matters not to the ultimate conclusion of history whether you agree with me or not. However, understanding the Southern perspective from their viewpoint is only fair in the larger picture of our history in this period, we have the Northern perspective taught all the time, I only seek equal time to the other side, whether they were wrong or right. Get a copy of the Kennedys’ book and check out the sources that they quote, it just might be a mind altering experience, or a total waste of time. Thanks for the space to spout. {:^)
Leave a Comment