Rooster7

some of those values could be thought of as traditional (the superiority of the "white" race, denigration of Jews, Catholics, etc.). It just happens that those values, no matter how traditional, don't float my boat. This is a distortion of what most believe to be traditional values. But, I would say that to be reverent one would need to only revere something. That something could be the great outdoors. Gee, why stop there. One could even revere a port-a-john. It fits your criteria one would need only revere something. Therefore, the declaration of religious principle is (to use a common phrase in Scouts) "adding to the requirements" of the Scout Oath and Law. Thats funnyI seem to remember something about duty to God in the Scout Oath.

Iraqi woman, Marine's mom share moment By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES None of the 5,056 words President Bush uttered last night in his State of the Union address was as moving as a simple hug between an Iraqi woman who voted for the first time and the mother of a U.S. Marine who died fighting to give her that privilege. The powerful moment, a snapshot of the sacrifices Americans have made to free Iraq from dictator Saddam Hussein, came near the end of the president's address as he introduced the parents of Sgt. Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas. Sgt. Norwood was killed Nov. 13 by sniper fire during the assault on the terrorist stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq. "His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror," Mr. Bush said in the hushed House chamber. He quoted Mrs. Norwood's letter. "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said: 'You've done your job, mom. Now it's my turn to protect you.' " Choking back his emotion, Mr. Bush said: "Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood." The parents stood and acknowledged the thunderous applause. Just then, Safia Taleb al Suhail, who was seated one row in front of them in the balcony guest box of first lady Laura Bush, turned and reached up to Mrs. Norwood. The two embraced as the applause grew to a crescendo. The president, visibly moved, looked up from the podium as the seconds stretched to a full minute the longest applause of the evening. As the women broke their embrace, they became momentarily tangled. Mrs. Norwood reached down to the cuff of Mrs. al Suhail's sleeve and untwisted her son's dog tags, which she had worn to the address. They had become caught on a button. The moment followed the president's praise of Mrs. al Suhail, the leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council, who had flown to the United States after voting Sunday in Iraq. "She says of her country, 'We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers,' " Mr. Bush said. "Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country and we are honored that she is with us tonight," the president said. Mrs. al Suhail stood and held up an ink-stained index finger voters had their fingers dipped in purple ink to prevent multiple voting. As she waved to the crowd, she held up another finger, making the peace sign. When Mr. Bush said, "We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty as they showed the world last Sunday," more than 100 lawmakers stood and held up their own index fingers, which they had dyed purple in a gesture of solidarity with Iraqi voters. One of the soldiers who made possible the vote and the purple fingers was Sgt. Norwood, who joined the Marine Corps in 1998 and was killed while fighting during "Operation Phantom Fury," the assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. Family and friends described Sgt. Norwood as a "rambunctious teenager," who played trumpet in marching band and jazz band at Pflugerville High. He was known for his "hilarious" impression of comic actor Jim Carrey. From an early age, he had wanted to be a Marine. After enlisting in the Corps, he told his parents he would "place my life in God's hands so that I can concentrate on being the best Marine I can be." At the time of his death, Sgt. Norwood was serving as part of a combat team operating two armored Humvees with the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, in house-to-house fighting in Fallujah. He was 25 and on his second tour of duty in Iraq when he was killed.

but I don't think it follows from that proposition that a religious-based moral code is necessarily "better" than a secular moral code--from your point of view (and mine as well) the true test of a moral code is how closely it adheres to absolute truth. As for me, I am convinced that the absolute truth is contained in Jesus Christ and Gods Word. That being the case, in my eyes, any moral code that doesnt conform to Christ and the bible, is substandard. But even if I were not a believer, Id argue that a moral code created by a group (assuming the group is reasonable and kind of heart) has more legitimacy than any code created by an individual, for the reason I stated previously: moral codes created by individuals are subject to the failings of that particular individual, some of which, he/she may not even be aware of. There are no checks and balances when an individual makes decisions without any outside authority. This is why we prefer democracies to dictatorships. But then again, even a moral code created by a group, is subject to the collective failings and weaknesses of that particular group. With no outside force with no overriding and guiding principles or power, conventional moral codes will always be subject to the whims of the current generation and/or the collective conscience of those empowered to create such codes. Some like to view these evolving moral codes, regurgitated and reinvented generation after generation, as the product of a progressive and maturity society (i.e., this isnt your grandmothers moral code). Others see the ever-changing morality resulting from each passing generation as the gradual decline of a society that increasingly no longer fears God. Instead of conforming to God (His ways), we chose to satisfy our own self-interests; we embrace a life of self-indulgence; and we deny absolute truth. Two Churchill quotes, which I offered in another thread, rings so true to me "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is." "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

EVERY moral code is a personal choice--even a code based in a revealed religion requires you to choose to believe in the truth of the religion. I think theres a better way of stating the above. Every person freely chooses the basis for his/her own moral code. People of religious faith, or rather people who choose to follow a particular faith conscientiously, are choosing a moral code which is defined outside of themselves. Some people claim to embrace a particular faith, yet deviate from its moral teachings. They have made a conscious decision to modify the moral code of their chosen faith. To put it another way, I see no reason to think that another person's moral code is more likely to be correct (.e., adhering to the true religion, ie, my religion) just because it is derived from some other religion. I disagree. If there is absolute truth, and I am one that subscribes to that opinion, then some of these moral codes are mutually exclusive. That is, not every code can be 100% correct. There cannot be more than one truth. Furthermore, moral codes created by individuals are subject to the failings of that particular individual, some of which, he/she may not even be aware of.

Yes. Churchill also offered these: "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is." "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

More Churchill folklore Woman approaches a non-sober Churchill at a party and states: Mr. Churchill, if I were your wife, Id put poison in your tea. Churchill responds: Madam, if you were my wife, Id drink it! I cant vouch for the authenticity, but you gotta love it.

Acco40, Words have meaning. I know there are some who like to twist those meanings, but they have specific meaning none the less. Anyone staking claim to being a liberal or a conservative, is staking claim to a specific ideology and the policies that go with them. Obviously there are some exceptions, but the whole purpose of labels (as you like say) is to communicate something specific about yourself (a belief, a trait, a philosophy, etc.) or others, to others. You may not like the terms liberal or conservative, but they have meaning and to deny that is simply illogical. but how in the world can you put either a liberal or conservative label on the belief that a fetus (or pre-born baby or whatever description you would like to use) should or should not have legal protections as either liberal or conservative? Now you seethis statement is incredibly illogical. Are you trying to tell me that its ambiguous as to what liberals believe concerning the legal protections of a fetus? Clearly this is not so. They believe that a fetus have no legal protections. If they did, they wouldnt support abortion. Why are you trying to muddy the waters by implying anything differently?

Hey, if "liberal blather" is enough to get me banned, so be it. I was criticizing a sentiment that sprung out of many universities in the sixties...and lives today in many parts of the country. This sentiment - sharing your parents opinion(s) is a sign of weakness - did not come from conservative thinking, but liberal thinking. Anyone old enough to remember the sixties, knows this to be true. My words were not designed or targeted to spark any one person's fury. But if they do, I feel no obligation to dance around the truth. I will live with whatever consequences that brings. By the way, labels do serve a purpose. I have been labeled a conservative by many folks on this forum. I happily accept it. While there may be a few exceptions, the label general describes my political and social views. Just like white describes my race and male describes my gender. These are not insults. They are what they aredescriptive labels. Some of us wear them proudly. Apparently some others prefer not to be associated with those labels, but that doesnt make them any less true. Acco40, Your point regarding the abortion issue and the apparent contradiction of political views represented by conservative and liberal ideologies (i.e., more government vice less government) fails to consider the true nature of the debate. That is to say, a pre-born baby a fetus, is a life that the government is obligated to protect. Liberals do not feel this to be true. Conservatives do. If the debate was about individual freedoms (i.e., a womans right to chose elective surgery), conservatives would not be in this fight. They would agree that the government has no business regulating a womans freedom in this manner. Yet, your supposition ignores the premise that conservative base their argument upon that a fetus is a life, not a piece of tissue which one has a right to remove by elective surgery.

double post - sorry...(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Yeah, and my waist line is a Libertarian. ...only about 3 of us have views that differ from our parents... I agree. If you're going to take a stance, you shouldn't be parroting someone else's views without any independent thought. In short order, it will become clear to everyone that you haven't really pondered the issues. However, to be clear, you can echo your parents sentiments on issues and have a brain of your own. Many folks do share the same views as their parents, and are very capable in a debate. I guesswhat I'm trying to say is - Don't subvert your thinking to the ageless blather of liberals, a prime example of which is - Sharing your parents views makes one a child incapable of independent thinking, or a prude, or "some kind of Boy Scout" (which thanks to the popular media, appears to be an insult). Theres nothing wrong with political harmony in the same household. If you share the same values as your parents, it tends to be the natural outcome. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with being a Boy Scout.

Anarchist, Please give specific examples to support your claims. I am curious. What societies predating MOSES claimed the precepts of the Ten Commandments or a good portion of them as a basis for their morality?

The "war" between Bush and Saddam was personalSaddam refused. Bush II sent in troops. Bush would have found any reason at all to topple Saddam. Just how long does one wait? We have a man who kills indiscriminately. He gassed thousands of Kurds. He supported anyone willing to do harm to America. Terrorists visited his country as if it was an Oasis. Without WMDs, there were compelling reasons to invade Iraq. Was Bush supposed to ignore all the red flags? Was NAZI Germany in the early thirties as blatantly obvious about their potential and their willingness to do evil? And by the way, George H. Bush was not just George Ws father; he was the President of these United States. Is your vision so blurred by politics that youre willing to color an assignation attempt on our President as a personal squabble? What was most troubling to me was that our country has now approved a policy of pre-emptive strikes against a nation that does not pose an immediate threat. Yes, lets wait until their ability to kill millions of Americans matches their desire to do so. That - my friends - scare the heck out of me. What scares me is a society that increasingly believes that humanity will come together to sing one big happy song, if we were just more willing to overlook a few indiscretions. This is the same line of thinking that brought us the probation systema system that releases pedophiles, rapists, and cold-blooded killers because they had a good record in prison. Yeah, lets pretend that North Korea and Iran are really our friends. Who will we pre-emptively attack next - the French because they don't support us? Cuba, because Castro thumbs his nose at us? Canada because she dumps snow on us? Yeah right. Thats real. Keep it up; Im sure youre convincing all the fence sitters. Our country should occupy the moral high ground and not stoop so low as the Saddam's, Stalins, Hitlers, etc. of the world. And how do we do that? By ignoring the slaughter of thousands? By pretending that they dont have evil intent? By waiting until their ability to do harm to us matches their rhetoric? What is our justification for NOT invading Somalia, N. Korea, Chechnya, etc. Did it ever occur to you that we should not, indeed we cannot, approach every problem with a one size fits all mentality? For example - If North Korea already has nuclear capability; a military solution becomes problematic. Thats to not say, its out of the realm of possibility. However, this factor cannot be ignored or played down. Lack of oil? You know - anytime anyone comes into the Presidency and its not straight out of the Peace Corps, this kind of nonsense is bantered about as if its fair game. I could come up with some ridiculous reasons as to why Clinton refused to take military action against some countries too, but thats just too easy and no less of a cheap shot. If you really believe we have a President thats putting thousands of troops in harms way for personal gain, then you should be leading a revolution. Otherwise, your rhetoric is the worst kind - incredulous, slanderous, and spiteful. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Pack, I am not one who clings to an idol or an idea after it has been uncovered as false. Know anyone who does? H'mmm? That's called a self-deception. Excluding no one except for God, the possibility that I have misplaced my trust in someone is very real. Yet, my confidence in Bush is not a matter of blind loyalty. While I like the man, I trust his leadership because I believe his speeches and his actions have been consistent and truthful. Nothing that you have noted makes him a liar. Furthermore, we (the general public) are in no position to second-guess what he knew then, what he knows now, and what we may never know as a matter of national security. The President is not playing a game of monopoly with the world. He would be a fool and a traitor to this nation, if he revealed everything he knows simply to keep liberal hounds from nipping at his feet. Something by the way that never even struck John Kerrys conscience as he was debating Bush prior to the election. The foolishness of these times is incredible. Unfortunately, it appears that liberals will never come to this realization. At least not until 1) they bait conservatives into doing something stupid, and/or 2) they get their wish and they govern these United States for a long enough period to bring calamity to all of us.

Pack, But in the spirit of quotations, Rooster7, I now quote you, "I have not seen any new information that suggests that we should not have avoided this war." Worthy of Bush himself, after disentangling all the conflicting negatives, I think I quite agree. Guilty as charged this was truly bad grammar on my part. Now admitting my syntax error, I stand my sentiment. Our President did the right thing. Our President is an honorable man. The fact that no WMDs have been found proves very little. As previous posts have indicated, there are many strong possibilities as to where they might be, or how they may have been disposed, and they preclude the assumption that our President is a liar. I realize, among liberals, it is more popular to conclude that a conservative President is a liar, than any other plausible explanation. Yet, I never thought that this kind of cheap politicking would extend into times of crisis.

For your amusement: http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz.cfm?qid=192374&origin=http://www.funtrivia.com/quizlistgold.cfm_QN_player=rosieg823

SA, I will agree the war is the result of a serious intelligence failure. I disagree that the war was the result of an intelligence failure. I would agree that some bad information might have been offered to the American public as a result of an intelligence failure. Theyre not the same. This war needed to be fought. I have not seen any new information that suggests that we should not have avoided this war. The worse case scenario: We rid the world of a cruel regime whichMAY not have been as big as an immediate threat to others as we originally thoughtBUT before that regime was able to build itself up any further and do more damage to Iraqs people, their neighbors, and the world in general.

Who comes up with this stuff? A) Inane college students who will do and say anything to buck the system B) Inane college professors who intellectualize everything including college mascots C) Inane college administrators who cave to every political pressure D) Inane college alumni who are trying to relive the 60s E) All of the above

Pack, Id like to see the quotes from Bush, which you feel leave no room for doubt that he lied about WMDs being in Iraq. Regardless, I do not feel he intentionally lied or misled the American public. Call me naive if it pleases you. But if he gave out bad information, Im convinced that an intelligence failure was the root cause, not a desire to manipulate anyone. Furthermore, it still cannot be said with certainty that those WMDs were not in Iraq prior to the invasion or even that theyre not there now. How difficult would be to hide canisters of chemical or biological weapons? Or, perhaps they simply moved them to Syria. We know in the previous decade that he had the capability to kill thousands of his own people. That makes two things very clear 1) Hussein has no conscience and we should not doubt his willingness to do any evil or help others do the same, and 2) even if Iraq no longer had WMDs, Saddam knew how to obtain them. No matter what bad information may have been passed along (if so, I believe it was inadvertent), we do know Husseins nature and the brutality of his regime. America was criticized long and hard for not getting involved in World War II sooner. And when we did get involved, millions of American groaned about U.S. interest not being served. Bush would have been criticized no matter what course he decided upon. In my mind, invading Iraq and installing a democracy, was and is the right thing to do. If there is ever going to be world peace or something even close, that region needs to be stabilized with freedom loving moderates. 9-11 wasn't an aberration. It was just their biggest success. Allowing radical Muslims the opportunity to fester in country's like Iraq will give them the time and the resources to have even bigger successes. From the stories Ive heard, via the soldiers, the vast majority of the Iraqi people are happy that we (the U.S.) are there. While I feel anguish over the death of each U.S. soldier and innocent Iraqi, I also understand the bigger picture. We have to get this one right, because if we ignore it if we put off what needs to be done today, there will be no turning back the hands of time to stuff the genie back in the bottle. I dont want to wait for a nuke to go off in NY or DC before we decide its time to do something. And apparently, neither does the current administration. And by the results of the election, Id say at least half the nation feels the same way. Thats my take on this.

Second sentence in the post above, shoud have read: Yet, upon reading his original post, his statements do not make that very clear.

Merlyn, Try looking at the Scouts as an alternative vice the only game in town. Public schools offer band for children that know how to play a musical instrument. Gee - that doesnt seem fair since my children dont know how to play a musical instrument. And the kids next door, you couldnt pay them to play a musical instrument. Yet, everybody has to pay taxes to support the band. Public schools offer football and other team sports. Yet I know kids that dont have any athletic ability and would be cut from the team if they tried out. I know others that hate competitive sports. Still, everybody has to pay taxes to support these teams. Public schools support the science club. Science clubs that very often teach and talk about evolution as if its fact vice theory. This seems wrong to me since creationism is a theory too. Surely you scoff, but creationism has been a theory for thousands of years. Evolution has only been around for a few decades. When youre done charging this windmill, whats next? Near as I can tell, your rights to ignore God have not been violated. And by my accounting, if youre being unfairly taxed because a public school in your area may be supporting Scouts, then I too should get a rebate from my area school system because it strives to present curriculum that totally disregards God as a possibility.

SemperParatus, Excellent story. You should submit it to Reader's Digest. Who knows...maybe one of those three girls will read it. The beautiful thing about time... 18 years later, I'll bet that gangly kid still has a stellar character and feels good about himself. I doubt if those girls still have stellar legs or feel good about themselves.

No, I didnt actually believe that he could possibly want Saddam Hussein over Bush as a leader. Yet, upon reading his original post, his statements do make that very clear. Even in his second post, he offers no thoughts to suggest that Bush is much better. To say the least, he hardly seems embarrassed to make a comparison between the two. Pack, It appears to me that we are on opposite ends. From my recollections, there was no attempt by Bush to hide his driving record. It is my perception that he ran an honest campaign. Furthermore, while he and others may in deed have been wrong about Husseins potential to have and/or build WMDs, I do not feel he intentional miss led us. In fact, as I remember his speeches, he never stated that WMDs was the sole reason, or even the most compelling reason, for invading Iraq. No matter, it appears that you and others on the left have a strong distrust for the President. Certainly, I must say, I had very similar feelings about Clinton when he was in power. I cant say I like him much better today. Now, I know, there many who will say this is all about politics which Bush and Clinton are simply the victims and/or victors of their partys struggle for national power. To some degree, I too believe this to be true. However, at a basic level, I also believe that the ideology purported by the conservative movement has our countrys best interest at heart. Furthermore, I believe that Bush is a true patriot that loves his country only second to his family and God. One of us is obviously wrong. It is not outside of the realm of reason that I could be that person. I am capable of being deceived just like anyone else. But, as I study the world today, and examine those who claim to serve us, my intellect and my heart tells me otherwise. So I guess we will continue to disagree. Perhaps 50 years from now, well both be in the same place laughing at our misconceptions. Frankly, for my part, I hope that Bush is not one of them. I like him. I think hes the man that he presents himself to be. In regard to who is leading us, I sleep well at night. I hope one day you will come to the same conclusion. If not, Ill see you in 50 years and we can discuss it then.

Pack, Sometimes Im a little slow. Or, perhaps, sometimes I simply refuse to believe what some of my countrymen will allow themselves to believe. What exactly are you attempting to say about our President? Or, did I miss your meaning again? It sounds to me as if youre saying that you would prefer a leader such as Saddam Hussein over President Bush? Please tell me thats not what you meant.

If you want to make the argument that some folks have used religion for their own purposes, you will get no argument out of me. I fully agree that many have perverted their faith, including some folks whove claimed the Christian faith. However, Stalins atrocities should not be separated from this discussion. He, and many like him, killed without conscience because they had no faith and/or hated those that did. There is a profound correlation. You cant claim religion (i.e., faith in God) is to blame for x millions of deaths, without recognizing the fact that godless agendas were the cause of 10x millions of deaths. Many, many, more have died at the hands of those who wanted to purge God from society than those who had perverted their faith in God. Regardless, and I feel this to be especially true for Christianity, those who have corrupted their faith (to justify their own purposes) are to be blamed, not a faith in God.

How many tens of millions died because of Stalin and other godless dictators?