A "warning" about Rick Perry

[Flying minis]

I don't have a problem with leaders having deep religious beliefs - as long as they don't believe THEIR beliefs should be the basis for the LAWS I have to respect. And as long as they can acknowledge that others have different beliefs, and can respect those also. A country based on old testament Christian law would be no more free than one based on Sharia law. . .

 

[Jill]

I don't have a problem with leaders having deep religious beliefs - as long as they don't believe THEIR beliefs should be the basis for the LAWS I have to respect. And as long as they can acknowledge that others have different beliefs, and can respect those also. A country based on old testament Christian law would be no more free than one based on Sharia law. . .

As a woman, in light of how Sharia law treats "the weaker ***", I really disagree! Under Sharia Law, women aren't even considered a full human.

 

[miniwhinny]

As a woman, in light of how Sharia law treats "the weaker ***", I really disagree! Under Sharia Law, women aren't even considered a full human.

Have you ever read the bible Jill?

Are you aware of what the bible actually says about how women should be treated? You may want to enlighten yourself because along with Bachman being a good submissive woman she should also be following the biblical "rules" about women and should NOT be allowed to talk in church. Should NOT be allowed, as a woman, to be able to teach males.

You may want to brush up on what the bible actually teaches about women. Unless Bachman is like most religious people and picks and chooses the parts they want to be obedient to. I mean it's either gods book or it isn't. If you believe in god then you MUST believe in what he commands you to believe in, right?

Genesis 3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

Titus 2:4-5

Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands

All of this based on a book written by (don't pass out with surprise here)...MEN lol. It wasn't written by a god - not one word of it, not one! If people want to believe this - hey more power to them, If it helps them sleep at night - go for it. But keep it out of politics. I no sooner want a christian as president forcing their beliefs than a muslim forcing theirs. This country was based on separation of church and state for a reason.

 

[Jill]

Miniwhinny, I remember the things you've said over the years about faith and those who have it. If this is your inivation to a debate, I'm just going to say "no,thank you."

 

[miniwhinny]

Miniwhinny, I remember the things you've said over the years about faith and those who have it. If this is your inivation to a debate, I'm just going to say "no,thank you."

Absolutely not! I have no desire to debate faith with you or anyone. The USA is based on separation of church and state and that's how I firmly believe it should remain.

 

[Jill]

OK, miniwhinny.

For anyone following, to come back to the subject of Rick Perry, this is a VERY interesting video regarding him and the bias of the media. It's from this past weekend. I was happy to see it had been uploaded online:

Rick Perry Getting Slanted Coverage? VIDEO LINK

 

[Flying minis]

I have faith, but I don't just blindly believe the writings of the bible, nor believe that ANY religion should have influence on political or legal issues. The old testament is just as harsh on women as Sharia law - that's part of what Sharia law is based on - remember, islam accepts the Old Testament too.

I have the same issue with Perry and the right wing as I do the left wing - inability to understand that another person's point of view was influenced by their life events, and can be different than yours and NOT BE WRONG just because it's different. I like to joke that actually, I usually like the right more than the left. The right at least aren't hypocrites - they admit their prejudices. The left say they are completely tolerant - but they aren't tolerant of the right!

Someone once told my brother (a Lutheran minister) that he lacks faith, because he questions the bible, religion, dogma, etc. His response? Of course I lack faith, otherwise it would be called certainty.

I have faith. And I'm pretty cynical of anyone who has certainty - whether it be religious or political. I don't understand how someone else can be SO sure they know and understand my needs without understanding or trying to understand my motivations and experiences. We all walk in different paths - why are some so certain that we can all do so in their idea of the perfect pair of shoes?

 

[Jill]

...And I'm pretty cynical of anyone who has certainty - whether it be religious or political. I don't understand how someone else can be SO sure they know and understand my needs without understanding or trying to understand my motivations and experiences. We all walk in different paths - why are some so certain that we can all do so in their idea of the perfect pair of shoes?

I hear you. But on the flip side, I want political contenders to be CERTAIN (of where we are, of where we should be, and of how we can best get there). I want them to be confident. Obviously, I also want to agree with what they think and with their vision for our Nation... but who would vote for the guy who says "I think the problem could be x, or y, or maybe z. There's a chance we could fix it by doing one of these half a dozen things... What do you all think?" Exaggerating to make the point -- the politicians have got to take strong stands and they have got to come out extremely confidently while campaigning if they want to have a chance at the nomination.

At any rate, in my opinion, one thing is very clear. OMG -- Obama Must Go!

 

[Flying minis]

I don't want them to be certain - confident, sure, but not certain. I want them to say "Look, there's a lot of reasons why we're where we are, and there are a lot of possible solutions. Here's what I think will work. Here's why. Some of you won't like that, but I also know I can't please everyone, so I'm going to do what I think is the best for the majority of people and for the country."

But that kind of truth, instead of the LIES of certainty, is not likely to be spoken by any politiian - nor is any politician who would actually say it electable.

I do however agree with you on one point - Obama Must Go! He to me is the epitome of misplaced certainty - "I know what's wrong, and I know what's best for all of you - no matter what you think."

 

[weebiscuit]

I read this article this morning and thought it was really clear and well written, and ties in obviously with the topic at hand. The article addresses a lot of the negative spin that has been put forth about Rick Perry's record (and very satisfactorily from my perspective). Well worth a read for those interested in the GOP candidates:

Jill, I read the article, and it's simply a conservative media comeback to the liberal media attacks. I really take anything I read from a biased reporter with a grain of salt. I also see that Lott failed to mention AT ALL that the greatest numbers of jobs in Texas were created because of the defense industry and many were NOT private sector jobs, while a great many other jobs were due to the oil industry, an advantage Texas has over other states.

there are many things which greatly bother me about Perry. One is the religious thing. (Every time I see him on TV I can't quite get it through my head if he's a politician or a televangelist). another thing was his support of Tarp, and he went so far as to send Nancy Pelosi a letter encouraging her to vote for it.

If he gets the nomination, I will most likely vote for him, as I want Obama out of office. But I would not be joyously casting that vote. I simply am not thrilled with any of the candidates, but I think Perry would definitely be a better choice than Bachman.

 

[weebiscuit]

:yeah

BRILLIANT POST. If people don't wake up and smell the roses we're going to be more backwards than the middle east. My god this is the year 2011 - and people are still sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "not true, not true". This SO scares me about these two and is THE number one reason I'd never vote for either.

Of course we may be okay because Michelle is a good submissive woman

and will have to have her husbands permission to rule the free world - maybe he'll say "He11 no".

I agree, with was a brilliant post! And so was yours. I am scared to death of having the White House in control of religious zealots. Our Constitution guarantees a separation of church and state because in Colonial days many colonies taxed churches which were not the *official* church of the colony out of existence. There were fines for non-attendance at colonial sponsored churches. Our founding fathers for the most part were Deists, and realized that you simply cannot have a government controlled by religion.

I have no problem with saying "under God" in the Pledge. I have no problem with "In God We Trust" on our money. There *are* certain fundamental christian principles upon which our nation was founded, and I don't want our heritage destroyed, but on the other hand I believe religion should be a private matter between an individual and their god, whomever that god may be, and I can see a dangerous swing towards christian fundamentalism among many people that would bring that fundamentalist view into politics.

 

[Jill]

I understand how you feel, Sandy. I don't mind the religious "feel", but I understand some people do. Actually, with Herman Cain, I really thought he sounds like a TV Preacher. I love him, but had wondered if that would get negative play if he was going to be a serious option.

Did you have time to watch the video clip? I think it says a lot, really not just about Perry, but it illustrates how the liberal media (which is 95% of the media) twists and edits things. Thank God for the sources that do show the full story and different perspectives. I think YOU get it and you know the impact of the liberal media, but the video illustrates very well just one (annoying) example.

And, like you, I will vote for the GOP ticket, no matter who is on it. Blindly supporting the GOP? Hardly. Supporting the party I firmly think has the best agenda for our Nation.

 

[tagalong]

the liberal media (which is 95% of the media) twists and edits things. Thank God for the sources that do show the full story and different perspectives

Jill, ALL the media twists and edits "things" - including Fox. Their latest glaring omission has been scant mention of the phone-hacking scandal involving Rupert Murdoch and his news agencies. And Fox (like other sources) does not give Ron Paul more than a passing mention even though he has done way better than many of their Chosen Ones/ex-employees. Fair & balanced is just an advertising slogan - not a mission statement.

ALL the media does this to some extent so it is important to use a wide variety of sources... no media can truthfully call itself fair & balanced.

 

[Jill]

I truly think the NEWS coverage on Fox is the most fair and balanced on the air. Too many times, people do not separate their opinion (or the one they've been prescribed) of the NEWS coverage, vs the extremely popular talking heads programs. Those are opinion shows, so of course they are slanted to reflect the opinion of those on the show. But when it comes to the NEWS programming, every day, I see the liberal and democrat perspective represented, in detail, on FOX. Makes me shake my head in disagreement far more often than not, but it IS shown and given significant air time on Fox NEWS.

Being a news junky, FOX is one of a dozen plus sources I rely on routinely for news every single day...

Of course, I'm not alone in my enjoyment of FOX, either. Its ratings are higher than ALL the other cable news outlets combined. That's been the case for years now.

 

[tagalong]

Jill - even the News part is tweaked and edited. It always has been, It always will be. Thus the scant coverage of the phone-hacking mess. I do know thw difference between talking heads amd actual news coverage, BTW.

No need to shout.

On Fox & Friends they even uncomfortably referred to the fact that they (the News) were not going to deal with the Murdoch story much and laughed nervously about it. Fox NEWS (not talking heads) has whitewashed it, mentioned it very briefly, stepped around it etc. If it was CNN or MSNBC with links to such a huge phonehacking scandal, Fox would be all over it releentlessly... why? Because it is a big news story. But News Corp is involved, so ssssshhhhhhh...

The SImpsons get better ratings than any cable news. Fox is the only right wing blathering talkathon in the media "pie". So obviously they will be a bigger "piece" of said pie and do better against a wide range of blathering talkathons like NPR, CNN etc. that are all smaller pieces of that same pie. Add up all the smaller pieces, and the % would be more or less split down the middle, the same as the entire country is.

 

[miniwhinny]

I believe religion should be a private matter between an individual and their god, whomever that god may be, and I can see a dangerous swing towards christian fundamentalism among many people that would bring that fundamentalist view into politics.

The reason the forefathers came to this country was for religious freedom. It was their top goal in forming America. Most of the forefathers were not Christian, but deist, atheist and agnostic.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits federal, state or municipal establishment of an official religion or preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Christian fundamentalism is deeply rooted in both Bachman and Perry. You only have to watch them during their campaigns to see it. They're including it into their campaigns - just look at Perry's day of prayer. If they're not separating it at this point - they're not going to suddenly change if they get elected.

The problem is that this isn't scaring people because the majority of people in this country are christian - so are these candidates - but the principle of our foundations must be kept sacred. What if a few years from now the majority religion is Muslim, or Hindu etc. There's a reason we were founded with separation of church and state foremost in our laws.

 

[Jill]

Tag, we probably won't agree, but that's what makes the world interesting in some ways! I do not consider "Fox & Friends" the news, but a show along the lines of Good Morning America, Today, and The Early Show. Fox & Friends is immensely more watchable imo, but it is not "the news".

When I think of "the news" on Fox, I mean the shows like American's Newsroom, Happening Now, America Live, Your World with Neil Cavuto and Special Report with Bret Baier. While I enjoy some of these shows, I do not consider this to be "the news" on Fox, but rather news and political opinion programming: The Five, Studio B, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, On The Record, Stossel and Red Eye.

In my opinion, you will not find any other TV news that comes close to presenting as balanced a report as you will on any of the Fox news programs (vs. news OPINION programs) I mentioned above.

 

[tagalong]

double!!

 

[tagalong]

Ummm.. I did not say Fox & Friends was the NEWS. Far from it. It is usually a gab session where they "high five" each other for what they think are very clever remarks - or assume a fake air of gravitas and The Sky Is Falling when talking in sombre tones about "the other side". I find it to be very staged.

What I actually DID say

was that even those types were saying that Fox News did not dare delve into the phone-hacking (a HUGE story everywhere else - worldwide!- except the magical glass bubble that is Fox News) - and then they hastily changed the subject.



Well, they should be pleased to know that repeating their tiresome advertising slogan so many times a day is working...

NO media is fair and balanced. None. Least of all any media that stridently claims to be so, plays to a specific demographic and cannot live up to their own hype & advertising... as they trip over their own slogan time and time again. Fortunately for them, their most devoted fans do not seem to care....

 

[weebiscuit]

Jill - even the News part is tweaked and edited. It always has been, It always will be. Thus the scant coverage of the phone-hacking mess. I do know thw difference between talking heads amd actual news coverage, BTW.

No need to shout.

On Fox & Friends they even uncomfortably referred to the fact that they (the News) were not going to deal with the Murdoch story much and laughed nervously about it. Fox NEWS (not talking heads) has whitewashed it, mentioned it very briefly, stepped around it etc. If it was CNN or MSNBC with links to such a huge phonehacking scandal, Fox would be all over it releentlessly... why? Because it is a big news story. But News Corp is involved, so ssssshhhhhhh...

This is simply incorrect about Fox hushing this story up. I watch news and ONLY news on TV, constantly switching channels, and I'd say Fox NEWS programs did an excellent job of covering this story. As Jill said, "Fox and Friends" is not a "hard news" show but it more like "Good Morning, America." But the actual news programs on Fox, like Bret Baier (sp??) or Neil Cavuto, certainly covered every bit of it.