posted November 06, 2004 01:04 PM              

My 8 year old grand daughter got a sample of those Republican values they like to tell everyone who will listen that they alone possess. She got a sample of those outstanding Republican morals that they and the Religious Right have a sole monopoly on.

Emily is in the 4th grade, a year younger than her classmates (since like all Democrats she is a whole lot smarter than Republicans so she was promoted.) Even in kindergarten she was doing math and reading with the first graders.

Emily's class had a mock election and her friend asked her afterwards who she voted for. Emily told her Kerry. Her "friend" then began to tear Kerry down saying he was this and that and so on - you know the way Republicans are - they love to slander and assassinate the character of others. Then this little girl told Emily that because she voted for Kerry she was no longer her friend. This hurt Emily. Being raised with Christian values herself she had never experienced this kind of thing and didn't understand it.

Her parents explained intolerance to Emily and told her that it is because she is a leader and to never let anything that anyone else says stop her from doing what she knows is right and believes as that would make her just another follower. They told Emily that if it means having to think like others, and be just like others for them to be her friend then they are no kind of friend anyway and not the kind of friend she would want either. They explained that voting for the person you felt was best for your country is what democracy is all about. So is thinking for yourself and being your own person no matter what anyone else says.

No doubt the little girl in Emily's class is just imitating her parents and passing on those outstanding Republican values to her classmates. Real nice value system to be passing onto to your children. Intolerance of others is not a value. Then again, the parents are just imitating other Republicans who are in turn imitating the intolerance of the Religious Right and the Bush adminstration. Because like their daughter they are just followers too. For that reason they are intolerant of anyone who is different.

I cried when my son related this to me about what happened to Emily because she was over with her mommy and sister on election day after she went with her mom to vote. She was very happy to see the Kerry/Edwards signs in my yard. She said, " Grandma, I don't have to ask who you are voting for." Emily was all excited about going to vote with her mom and she happily told me that she voted for Kerry too in school.

My 8 year old grand daughter was happy to be participating in and learning the democratic process. I worry that if things continue on as they are in this country it will no longer be democratic by the time she is old enough to actually vote in an election. I fear that her excitement about it all now will be totally destroyed and turned into cynicism because we can no longer hold honest elections in this country. We can no longer go to our precincts to vote without Republican goons standing over us and using intimidation tactics to deter the "riff raff" from voting. We will not be able to vote without Democrats watching the Republicans and the Republicans watching the democrats and lawyers standing by.

The Red Zone cannot see what they are doing in the name of God. But those of us in the Blue Zone can see it and we need to keep telling the truth and fighting for democracy. For the sake of our kids and grand kids and their future.

Reading the posts I have missed since I have not been here for a week, I can see those outstanding Republican values being exhibited around here in winning the election. I have to say if you people are that bad at winning what would losing be like for you? I can see how hard they are working at bringing about unity in this country. I can also see the values they are passing on to their children and grand children. However, we must remember, God knows we are told it often enough, they are all outstanding Christians who vote on moral issues - they are "value voters."

Too bad their values aren't exhibited in their works and actions. Too bad their values are all based on intolerance which is truthfully antichrist, the opposite of what the Christ they say they follow taught and lived.

We all know what outstanding and pious Christians the Republicans are and my grand daughter learned what BS and hypocrisy that really is.

posted November 08, 2004 03:31 AM              

I get home from eye surgery only to hear WHAT the Republican Diebold voting machine manufacturers made sure everyone would hear..."bush wins!" eeeeeeeeee ...

...then I find my computer is on the fritz.... followed by learning of a friend's passing....all coinciding with the numbness leaving the surgical area....in other words....PAIN! I felt like the little kid in the book who was having the TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE, VERY BAD NO GOOD DAY! *sigh*........but it passed.....

Was sorry to hear the story about your granddaughter, Mirandee....Adults have a great influence over children, be it good or bad....and it's sad, when it's bad...*sigh*

Scorpbaby.......in the case of your little brother's school mate and his remarks about dubya, "He is an evil man, he is going to hurt our earth," he seems too young to be parroting his parents...I would say that this little four year old is not only picking up vibes, but has a lot of wisdom and insight (probably left over from his last incarnation).......

posted November 08, 2004 11:02 PM              

Glad your computer problem is taken care of too. Computers can be a major pain in the butt.

posted November 08, 2004 11:33 PM            

I can't imagine what that could be.

posted November 08, 2004 11:37 PM              

"...since like all Democrats she is a whole lot smarter than Republicans
so she was promoted."

******************************************

Do you really believe that ALL Democrats are smarter than Republicans or are you just being "tongue in cheek" when you say this? I am a Republican and certainly I can say I am smarter in certain ways than some Democrats I know. There are different types of "smarts" you know. Really, the point is not "what type of smarts are we referring to?" but indeed the all-encompassing generalization that you are making here. It's just not that black and white. Hopefully this is something you understand and something that I am perhaps reading too much into. If not, I would find the implications of your statement very disheartening...

And the second item I would like to comment on:

"..you know the way Republicans are - they love to slander and assassinate the character of others...."
*******************************************

Well, you just essentially told me that this is the way you see me personally, being that I am in fact a Republican. I am not commenting one way or another regarding whether or not I am offended, upset, etc. etc. that you would view me in this way simply because I am a Republican. My emotions, while significant to me, are not the issue. The issue is that to my recollection, I have never slandered or assassinated anyone's character here. But basically, you just told me that this is who I am as a person, simply because this is "how Republicans are". Without further belaboring the point, it's simply not true. Your perception of reality is not absolute. Perhaps you have had some very negative experiences with those people of the Republican persuasion but it is a dangerous thing to group us all into one entity, as though we are not individuals in our own right. This is just as harmful as some of the things people here have taken issue with where some of Jwhop's posts have been concerned.

And lastly:

"They say that because Democrats and other religions practice tolerance."
*****************************************

This is particularly distressing to me, although again, my petty emotions are not the primary issue. As a Christian, myself, I do practice tolerance. I do not claim to be perfect but I am always trying. I practice it in my daily life, with family, friends, strangers, people I disagree with, even on this forum itself.....What you have written is yet another unfair generalization that paints a negative picture of all Christians.

posted November 09, 2004 12:11 AM              

And yes, I think a lot of people have had bad experiences with Republicans in the whole campaign. I think using religion to ostracize a whole group of people from society as the Republican Party did to the homosexual community in this election is abhorrent. If creating a target "hate group" is their way of running a campaign then I fail to see how they can call themselves principaled, moral and "value voters." I fail to see that as a value.

I was both upset and angry when I wrote this post. As I think anyone would be if the same thing happened to their child or grand child.

I'm a Christian myself. I in no way indicated that Christians are bad in general. Most Christians are very good people. You obviously misintrepreted something that I said. What I was referring to is that the Republican Party in their campaign painted themselve as pillars of virtue, principals and morality and painted the Democrats as having no morals and values. Would you deny that is true?

posted November 09, 2004 12:23 AM              

The Zero Factor may not even have to come into play here.

posted November 09, 2004 12:40 AM              

Regarding the misinterpretation on my part of your remark regarding other religions being tolerant: My misinterpretation was a product of this statement:

"They say that because Democrats and other religions practice tolerance".

Here you imply (when you refer to "other religions") that Christianity is not part of a group of religions which espouse "tolerance".

But you go on to say:
"I'm a Christian myself. I in no way indicated that Christians are bad in general."

But clearly, as you view lack of tolerance to be a bad thing, and go on to point out that Christianity is lacking in this regard, you are casting a negative light on the religion and therefore Christians themselves. It is obvious how I came to this conclusion.

posted November 09, 2004 01:39 AM              

quote:

---

The Republicans say Democrats have no value system. We have no morals. They say that because Democrats and other religions practice tolerance.

---

This statement meant that because Democrats believe in the Constitutional Article of Separation of Church and State and because of that article the government cannot enact laws that pertain to moral issues such as abortion which is a moral issue because not everyone sees abortion as murder, and the President is to serve ALL Americans not just special interest groups, and because Democrats don't ostracize people for being homosexual that is painted as lacking values by the new Republican Party. Reagan ran on an anti-abortion campaign and did nothing to change the abortion laws in the 8 yrs he served because he couldn't without being in violation of the Constitution. Bush will find that out too when he tries it. It means that the Religious Right also say the Democrats have no values because they, along with other religions and I meant ALL religions including mainline Christian churches do practice tolerance. Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the U.S. you know. A President has to serve those people too. All this means to imply the Religious Right practices intolerance. Which they do. Their attacks on homosexuals are proof of that. They even list the National Council of Churches as one of their enemies. Other Christian churhes are the enemy because they do not think like the Religious Right? Now how intolerant is that? It is they who are intolerant of all other Christian religions not me. I am a Roman Catholic but I believe there is truth in all religions.

When speaking of the Republican Party what else would I be referring to anyway but the Religious Right? It is the State Church is it not? Though it is not actually a "Church" but a movement. Pat Robinson, Jerry Farwell and the rich conservative right who consider themselves Christians that comprise the CNP, Council for National Policy who hold secret meetings all over the United States and take a vow never to divulge anything said in the meetings. Never to let the press onto where they are meeting. Their name explains their agenda. You only have to go to their website to discover what they are all about.

Nothing here was negative, Quik. It was all the truth. The only negative was the experience my grand daughter had at school because some poor child is picking up these things from her parents.

Intolerance is what the post was about and how that is being passed onto the children of those who practice intolerance and yet call themselves good Christians and "value voters." I never implied anything of the sort about religion in general. All mainline religions practice tolerance or at least try to. Since churches are made up of people there will always be good and bad in all religions. Just like everywhere in society. Once again, no implication at all on my part regarding religion in general that is how you intrepreted it. I can't for the life of me see how you could interpret it that way but apparently you did or there is some other reason for this.

posted November 09, 2004 10:21 PM              

To that I respond: "Then you just haven't looked hard enough". I have taken Jwhop to task plenty of times. Let's not turn this into a Democrats v. Republicans issue.

Sorry about my apparently gross misinterpretation of the point you were making about the religious right wing extremists. To their defense though, it's hard to be "tolerant" when they see other Christians taking a pro-choice stance, which in their eyes amounts to murder. I don't want to get into another abortion debate b/c quite frankly I am sick of it for the moment but I am using this issue to illustrate a point. If you thought that what was being condoned amounted to "murder", I don't think you'd be so tolerant about certain issues either.

posted November 10, 2004 01:30 AM              

Quik for the record, though I have said it before in another post, I am pro-life. Which means I don't pick and choose when it is okay and not okay to kill. Being pro-life to me includes before birth from the moment of conception, respect for all life by helping the poor and underprivileded, against the death penalty, life for all living things including animals, and anti-war except when it comes to defense or is a just war like WWII. I would hate it but I would kill to defend myself or a member of my family or a friend.

I am a strong defender of the Constitution and the article of separation of church and state. It never works out when the two align. History taught our founding fathers that and it teaches us that. It's bad for both the government and the churches. Why would we want to combine the two in this country when the enemy we are fighting are proof of where that road takes us? Theocracy is very supressive and brutal. It's all based on intolerance of any other religion or anyone different.

Being the devil's advocate, I take into consideration that just maybe, since we are all not functioning on the same level of spirituality or conscience or faith, there are others, those in the pro-choice movement who do not see it as we do. They do not see it as the slaughter of the innocents. We are not going to change their minds by forcing our beliefs onto them. We are not going to change their minds through government legislation either. All we are going to do is take the country back 35 -40 years where those women will be having abortions in back alleys and at home with coat hangers. Many dying in the process. And if we legislate abortion what moral value do we next legislate? And when will it end? And whose morals are we going to base those laws on? One church? A state church that dictates to all other churches and religions what their teachings, dogmas and worship should be? One man's moral values, the president? No one has the same moral values and principals as another. Those are formed through life and through our belief systems. Once we as a country get into the business of all of this we are stepping on God's toes. We are not allowing God to work in each of us on an individual basis. We all have different journeys through life. God knows just how to reach each of us. God has a different path for each of us to travel. We find our way through and by the grace of God, not from laws and not from one religion that thinks it has the sole monopoly on truth. Churches and Christians can teach, educate and speak out on why they see abortion as wrong. The woman in the Roe vs Wade case is now a Roman Catholic and spending her life working for pro-life. She councils other women who are thinking of having an abortion and those who have had abortions. Her conversion came about from one priest who sat down and talked to her, treated her kindly, did not judge her, and befriended her. From him she learned why the churches feel abortion is wrong. Amazing how our example and our love and acceptance can bring about change. But people only rebel against being told they are wrong and we are right, they should be like us and here is a law you have to follow. I doubt that any of us came to a conversion or change because of a law. I think most of us messed up big time before we came to the point when we needed God and he was there. He always was. Calling each of us gently to him. But we had to come to a point in our lives when we were open to it. Not by a law that says we have to.

That's just my thoughts on it.

Some of us are lucky and find God early in life, some in the middle of life and some not until the end. Some people have to mess up badly and hit bottom before God can reach them. Who are we to judge others that mess up and who are we to condemn them for not being as spiritual as we think they should be? Who are we to say our values are superior to anyone else's? Who are we to say one man has more faith than another? Only God can see the soul. Only God can judge those things and only God has the right to do it.

posted November 11, 2004 12:02 AM              

I merely responded that certain people might not be "tolerant" of others views if they consider that "view" to be the equivalent of condoning murder. That's all. I was really not trying to initiate a debate or discussion about it. It was just a statement and not something I intended to argue. It doesn't really need to be argued. It just "is". It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. There are people who are not members of the church who still believe that abortion is murder. However, this issue is always associated with the "church" because they are obviously the most vocal opponents of same.

Much as some people would like to believe, we are talking about the opposition to the idea that "murder" is ok, regardless of whether or not the church "says so". As I said, there are people out there who don't need the church to tell them what they think. Of course, there are those that do but I am not talking about those people here because again, I am trying to make a point.

Yes, there are those in the pro-life movement who do not see abortion as slaughter. But then, there are also rapists who do not see rape as anything "bad" and murderers who enjoy what they do. Should people who believe that rape and murder are "wrong" "tolerate" it just to accomodate the criminals who "view" it as being "ok"? Obviously not. And this is the line of reasoningg that many of the hard-core pro-lifers take. So we can discuss the fact that women will be using coat hangers ad nauseum and there will still be people out there who really wouldn't care what these women do to themselves because "murder is murder" and those who commit murder are at fault, regardless of the harm they cause themselves in the process. In fact, there are those that would say that if women die in the process of trying to abort their own children, then good for them. "They're killers anyway."
So you see, you cannot bring "perception" into the argument. Many pro-lifers don't care how other people perceive or "view" abortion. Why should they when they know, or think they know, that what is going on is tantamount to infantacide? Who would not fight like the devil to "right" this situation from a legal standpoint if that's what he or she really thought was happening?

You talk of moral values and principals as they relate to abortion as though it's a matter of personal choice. Again, I say that to some people it is NOT a matter of personal choice in the sense that the choice should be made without legal repercutions. Much the same way our justice system would not (ideally) put a murderer back out on the streets because they have committed a crime against the law, many people believe that abortion should also be against the law, being that it is murder.

Look, my only point in my last post was to affirm that there are some people who cannot be tolerant and SHOULD not be tolerant in certain cases of situations or ideas, based on their beliefs and based on the way our justice system works. I cited abortion merely as an illustration and it was not my intention to have to argue the abortion issue. As I said, I really have no desire to do that.

posted November 11, 2004 01:27 AM              

quote:

---

I merely responded that certain people might not be "tolerant" of others views if they consider that "view" to be the equivalent of condoning murder. That's all. I was really not trying to initiate a debate or discussion about it.

---

I was merely pointing out to you that all people do not see abortion as murder. And a kinder way of bringing them to an understanding that it is without undermining democracy or the Constitution. I gave you an example of where that actually happened with the very woman who was Jane Roe in the Roe vs Wade case before the Supreme Court.

If you aren't trying to initiate a debate or discussion don't bring it up. That statement is just really saying "I want to have the last word on it."

You went on to bring up a lot of other things ( some I agree with) that would be worthy of discussion but since you might not want to discuss them either I won't. I thought this was a discussion forum where people could give their thoughts and opinions. I must have been mistaken. Sorry.