[GCFL-discuss] Fw: 2004 Voter Guide-Exercise our wonderful freedom by voting.

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

When someone sends me something I disagree with, I NEVER follow the
cowardly plea to "just delete" and leave the field to what is often a
pack of lies.

John Kerry and John Edwards are both on record as explicitly affirming
that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. They both opposed
writing this definition into the U.S. Constitution. I agree with them. It
demeans the constitution to write a new sentence into it every time an
issue gathers a little publicity. Marriage has always been a matter for
the states, and we don't need to make a federal case out of every issue
of concern. The federal government is too big and too intrusive already.
One state currently marries same-sex couples, and will probably cease
doing so in 2-3 years. Forty-eight states are running furiously the other
way. We don't need to make marriage a federal issue. Bush is just
grandstanding.

The law in this nation at this time allows any state to ban abortion in
the third trimester of pregnancy, so long as the mother's life or safety
are not endangered. Most states have such laws. Rightly so. There was no
need for Congress to pass a law on the subject, and, again, congress had
no business making it a federal issue. The law congress passsed was also
flawed, in that it did not make adequate provision for the fact that
SOMETIMES a late-term abortion is the only way to preserve the mother. In
some cultures, it is a woman's duty to sacrifice her life for her baby.
In our country, a woman MAY make that choice, but is not legally REQUIRED
to do so. It is a small percentage of pregnancies, and very few late-term
abortions are performed. IF one is necessary, tragic though ALL options
at that point are, the operation WILL destroy the baby. What difference
does it make which method is used? It should be done quickly, and with
the least damage to the mother.

The school prayer issue is another piece of fabricated nonsense. If
anyone tried again the web page that Matthew correctly identified the
address of, you will notice that the author, a professor at Indiana
Wesleyan, dissected this issue by saying that he does NOT want the state
writing official prayers for his children. That is ALL that any Supreme
Court decision prevents. The U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that
students have a constitutional right to form VOLUNTARY Bible study clubs,
prayer circles, etc., which must be allowed the same access as any other
club. There is no legal issue about voluntary prayer in public schools.
See also Virginia's law providing for a moment of silence which may,
among other things be used for prayer. But for all the teacher knows,
half the students may be engaged in torrid adolescent fantasies. Its
silent, private, and voluntary. There is nothing to vote for or against
in regard to either candidate.

Anybody who votes for President of the United States based on whether a
candidate did or did not appreciate any movie by any director on any
subject is unfit to cast a vote. It would be the ultimate degeneration of
American politics into a Hollywood popularity contest. Nor does that neat
little list identify any specific quotes made by either candidate about
any movie. Personally, I have not bothered to watch Gibson's movie,
because I know he presented blatant lies and distortions in Braveheart
and The Patriot. I have no reason to trust his presentation of any part
of the life or death of Jesus. (Note: I have read about William Wallace
for a long time, and really looked forward to a movie about him --
Braveheart was therefore a real disappointment).

I am not aware that Bush or Kerry has said word one about the Supreme
Court case entitled Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale. It is one case where
I thanked God that Scalia was on the court. I was really disturbed by
Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion. I could care less whether the Boy
Scouts allow an adult homosexual to serve as a scout master. I care a lot
that any private voluntary organization in the United States has a right
to set its own standards for membership, which is noneo f the
government's business -- any branch of government. Anyway, this is well
settled law now, not likely to be disturbed, and not an issue in this
campaign.

John Kerry has never criticized George Bush for mentioning God too often.
I challenge anyone to provide me with a direct quote, with a credible
citation as to the date, time, place and source. He MAY have criticized
Bush for wrapping his policies in the mantle of his religious faith -- I
certainly have. It is the essence of what John warned against when he
said that 'anti-christs will appear among you.' That is lower case,
plural, not THE Anti-Christ. Those who speak in the name of Jesus or as
if they were God's annointed, when they are not. The business of human
government is always Caesar -- whether it is an empire, a monarchy, a
military dictatorship, an anarchist commune, a presumptuous attempt at
theocracy, or a democratic republic.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Don't render unto Caesar what is
God's, then try to make up for it by offering God what is Caesar's. Such
offerings are repugnant to God.

I applaud anyone who helps to block George Bush's judicial appointments
-- and to keep that in perspective, I believe the ACLU has long since
outlived its purpose. Until George Bush, I laughed at the idea that we
could sway the Supreme Court by our choice of a president. All justices
have surprised the presidents who appointed them. Earl Warren for Chief
Justice was Richard Nixon's idea. Reagan's appointees do not consistently
agree with each other, and Scalia in particular as as firm in upholding
the full meaning of a jury trial as he is at pursuing more conservative
agendas. Well, really, that IS a conservative agenda, in the finest sense
of the word. But Bush is really pushing the envelope, to the point we
might not have an independent judiciary. What I expect of President Kerry
is that he will confer with the leaders of Congress -- at least one house
will most likely be Republican -- and come up with a list of experienced
judges who are not strongly committed to any hot button ideological
position, but show a capacity to look carefully and thoughtfully at all
matters presented to a court, and thoroughly document the reasons for
their decisions. More than that we cannot ask. The whole nature of an
independent judiciary is that they look at the law, not at popular
opinion, or the prejudices of those who appointed them.

Incidentally, if this is an early draft of Pat Robertson's so-called
"Christian Voters Guide," I recall receiving one of those at a church I
was visiting in October 2000. Of fifteen issues listed, only five had any
relation to faith and family. The rest were economic issues which should
have given the whole thing the title "Capital Investors Voters Guide." I
expect nothing better from Robertson this year. He would have been the
first one Jesus whipped out of the Temple.

(Lance, I offer this alternative perspective in the spirit of John 8:32.
It is only my take on these issues, it is not The Truth. But I submit
that I have taken a little more care to learn some of the relevant facts,
instead of reducing the whole election to a series of misleading slogans
that do indeed APPEAL to matters of concern to many Americans, but hardly
do justice to those concerns. In fact, I would say that most of the
statements made in that voter's guide were plain lies.)

Siarlys


________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!