Comments by MikeDanger
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on October 11 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dobieman wrote…
“Some of the most vile and widespread murderous actions have been taken against millions of people in the name of religion during history...the Inquisition, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, for a couple examples. Even Hitler called upon and received ample justification from the Catholic church in his pograms against the Jews.”
These kinds of statements are typical anti-Christian liberal/atheist bigotry. The inquisition and the Spanish conquest of the Americas both happened more than 500 years ago. If you’re going to talk about how Christianity is so evil, then please provide some examples that are a little younger than 500 years old. I myself have never participated in any inquisition. And I can’t think of anyone I know that participated in the conquest of the Americas.
Sadly dobieman is correct that countless lives have been lost in the name of religion. However, many more lives have been saved in the name of religion. Countless lives have been positively affected by the works of Christian organizations, churches and missionaries. How many millions of people have been helped by the YMCA, the Salvation Army, Prison Fellowship Ministries or Habitat for Humanity? Thousands upon thousands of Christian missionaries have brought education, healthcare, clean water, food, etc to millions of poor and underserved people around the globe, in addition to bringing them the healing word of god.
Furthermore, an honest look at societies that espouse anti-Christian ideologies will convince you that you really don’t want to live in those societies. Since the founding of communism in Russia and China, more than 100 million people of those two nations have been murdered. The Khmer rouge murdered at least 1 million people. At least 500,000 were killed in Rwanda. Name just one atrocity committed and condoned by Christians in the past 100 years that can compare with those mentioned above.
Posted on October 11 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dobieman wrote …
“As I read the comments in here from folks such as glacierles, polarmark, and especially bigchinasean as well as some of the others of their ilk I can see why our founding fathers felt there was a distinct need for a separation of church and state.”
Dobieman…if the founding fathers felt such a strong need for “separation of church and state,” then why didn’t they put it in the constitution. Or at the very least, why didn’t they make an amendment dealing solely with the issue of church and state. They managed to make an amendment dealing solely with the possession of guns, so it certainly would have been doable.
Furthermore, Jefferson didn’t even mention church and state separation until 15 years after the ratification of the constitution. That’s a long to remain silent on such a vital issue. And out of 39 signers of the constitution, he was the only one to every publically discuss the concept. And even then, it wasn’t at a gathering with other legislators it was in a private correspondence with a church group.
Yep, church and state separation was such an important issue to the people and leadership of America that it was publically debated a staggering two (2) times in the first 160 years of our great nation; By Jefferson in the early 19th century and the Supreme Court in 1878.
Posted on September 14 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Mr. Mikol’s feels so passionately about paying taxes maybe he should consider donating all of his disposable income to the federal government. I’m pretty certain that there are no laws preventing individuals from paying more in taxes than they truly owe.
Contrary to what Mr. Mikol’s suggest, taxes are not good. Some of them, however, are necessary. Those taxes which pay for things such as fire and police services, road maintenance, education, national defense, etc. are beneficial to everyone. But those taxes which go towards programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Wic, day care subsidies, housing vouchers, etc. are simply the government’s way of taking money from one individual and giving it to another.
Safe communities, good schools, healthy children and adults; these things can be accomplished without increased taxes or a larger government. It just takes people who want to take care of one another.
Posted on August 18 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Andjsutice4all - “Dot, I am just wondering... if we are going to hypothetically call an abortion murder, will we call a miscarriage suicide...?”
An abortion is a deliberate act perpetrated on human being for the benefit of another person. A miscarriage is a natural act that the body undergoes when it experiences an unviable pregnancy. A miscarriage can be considered a suicide as much as dying of old age can be considered a suicide.
Marie Barr- “A mother and fetus can not be considered biologically separate beings; the fetus can not survive without the mother, and thus should not be considered as a totally separate entity…”
Your definition of “biologically separate beings” is not in any textbook or medical journal article that I’m aware of. A fetus has different DNA than the mother. The fetus may or may not have a different blood type, hair color, eye color, or even different sexual organs. If that’s not a good description of a “biologically separate being” than what is? Furthermore, your definition of a “biologically separate being” fails to recognize a whole set of human conditions. A toddler cannot survive without the assistance of another human being. Are toddlers not deserving of life? An individual in a coma cannot survive without outside assistance. Do comatose individuals suddenly become subhuman?
Ken Woods- “I have a penis, and therefore I'm pretty unqualified to have an opinion on what a woman does with her body or not….”
The last time I checked there hasn’t been a woman in the last 2000 years that’s gotten pregnant without the assistance of a man, so you have every right to have an opinion on abortion. Furthermore, there may come a day when it’s your child, your son, your daughter in the womb of some self-centered, irresponsible, narcissistic female and I guarantee you’ll want to have a say. It amazes me that a couple can’t sell a car without the permission of both people, yet a woman can take the life of another person’s child on whim.
Brass Monkey- "The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense." – Thomas Paine
Finding a quote on an unrelated topic does not add anything to the conversation. And it certainly doesn’t make you seem intelligent. It just means that you know how to work the “Google machine.” See, even I can work the Google machine.
Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad. – Thomas Paine.
Posted on July 8 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Clearly, Mr. McGuire needs a little bit more honest information.
First off, while President Bush’s approval rating is at a very low level, so is the approval rating for the democrat controlled congress. A May 14 Gallup poll stated that the congressional approval rating was 18%. So apparently, most Americans think both Bush and Congress are doing a terrible job.
And who cares about Scott McClellan, he’s one guy who’s trying to sell books. Heck even Obama's, friend and mentor of twenty years, Rev Wright, eventually turned on him.
And stop bringing up Abu Ghraib. That was FOUR years ago. The people who were involved in that were all punished (like they should have been) and the military has learned from that mistake. Give it a break. What if your wife brought up mistakes you made four years ago.
Moving on. The Justice Department is apart of the executive branch. Any president, republican or democrat, can hire or fire whoever they want.
And while most liberals who are ignorant of America’s past may think that Iraq is the “greatest debacle in U.S. history”, it certainly is not. How about the suspension of habeas corpus during the presidency of Lincoln. How about Lincoln’s choice to imprison individuals who spoke out against the war. Heck, how about the Civil War itself. That was truly terrible. What about Slavery. There are a few people who think that that was actually pretty bad. What about the internment of U.S. citizens during the Roosevelt administration. What about the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. Read a halfway decent history and then try to say that Iraq is the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country.
As far as the economy goes, it grew last quarter, albeit at a terribly miniscule rate of 0.9%, but it still grew. The unemployment rate of 5.5% is lower than Canada’s, Mexico’s and most of the European Union.
And as far as what the rest of the world thinks of us. Who cares? We’re the greatest nation that’s ever existed in the history of mankind, and if other countries and people have a problem with that; then too bad for them. They need to shut the heck up.
Look, there’s no difference between democrat or republican politicians. They say and do whatever it takes to get elected and then to get re-elected. They make sure that they win and we the people continue to lose.
Posted on July 7 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The last time I checked, Mark Begich was running as a Democrat. Also, the last time I checked, the democrats in both houses of congress have voted against drilling for more oil and increasing the number of nuclear power plants or oil refineries. And because the democratic party is beholden to it’s save the polar bear, save the whales, protect the spotted owl extremist environmentalist masters; I doubt they’re even going to approve the building of more hydroelectric power plants, because they might harm the little fishes.
Furthermore, while democrats keep repeating this nonsense about renewable energies, they’ve yet to suggest how poor families in the inner city are supposed to afford $20,000 solar power systems. Nor have they suggested how renewable resources, which account for a meager percentage of the nation’s power generation, can ever be the main source of power.
Basically, while democrats like Mr. Begich have pointed out the republicans’ lack of answers to the energy problem, they yet to come up with any feasible ideas of their own. Mr. Begich is a typical democrat and sending him, or any republican candidate, to Washington D.C. is not going to make any difference.
Posted on June 16 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ha Ha Ha. I laugh at the idea that any administrator, especially former Chancellor Jones, gives a rats ass about student debt.
Wait, I feel another laugh coming on…Ha Ha Ha.
Wasn’t it former Chancellor Jones who implemented the Student Athletics and Recreation fee without getting any input from UAF students? I now have the privilege of paying an extra $60 per semester to support the athletics department. Yay! Last time I checked, the athletics department has none, zip, zero, nada, impact on academic programs at UAF, and yet Former Chancellors Jones thought that we students would just love to support that pathetic, debt ridden program. Oh, and what about the transportation fees. I’ve ridden those ridiculous shuttles twice in four semesters. What does that come out to, thirty bucks a ride? Then there’s the SRC fee, the technology fee, the parking fee, the blah blah blah fee. What about the expensive meal plans for food we can’t even serve to terrorist at Gitmo.
And what about tuition? Tuition has gone up more that 50% since I’ve been there. I KNOW my department hasn’t hire 50% more faculty.
I could go on and on, but I would just make myself even more depressed.
The longer I’m at UAF, the more I realize that the UAF administrators don’t care about students. In fact, I bet the vast majority of them just wish that those “pesky students” would simply go away.
University addressing student debt…Ha…What a joke.
Posted on June 15 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Imusuallyright
“…religious bigotry and theological hypocrisy.” These are the words that Mr. Eaglin himself uses in his editorial. They are not the words of someone who just isn’t religious. They’re the words of someone who is filled with an animosity towards religious people.
I know plenty of non-religious people and they don’t practice a faith because it’s just not for them. I also know plenty of people who are devoutly "anti-religion." They hate anyone who goes to church. They think that anyone who professes a faith in god must be a complete idiot. I know these people. They really do exist.
In the few years since I started practicing my faith, the only people that I’ve heard use the phrases, “religious bigotry,” or “theological hypocrisy” are anti-religion folks. So when I describe Mr. Eaglin, or anyone else, as anti-religious, it’s because their thoughts, words or actions make them seem “anti-religion.”
Posted on June 15 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For Mr. Eaglin and other anti-religion bigots that live in our beautiful community, let me explain what article six of our constitution means. The line, “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” simply means that our U.S. government nor any state or municipal governments can create laws which require someone to be of a certain religious persuasion.
As an individual, if Cal Thomas wanted to base his political decisions on what kind of shoes the candidates wear, then that’s his right.
As an individual, I could base my decision for president on what kind of music the candidates have in their iPods. Is it smart to do so? No. Is it my right to do so? Yes.
If Mr. Eaglin wants to be mad at someone, he should be mad at Senator Obama. It was Senator Obama, who decided to make his religious beliefs a central theme to his candidacy. If Senator Obama had only chosen to stick with his usual pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, anti-family, anti-American values, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?
But no, he wanted to appeal to religious conservatives. Now he and liberals like him, are upset that so many people would actually scrutinize his beliefs.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on October 11 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doris,
Nothing in my comment suggested that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Where’d you get that from? I’m not even going to respond to your question because it has nothing to do with my original comment. The point I was making, was that the founding fathers didn’t care about church/state separation, and especially not in the way the concept is viewed today. That’s all I was trying to say. Anything else you took away from my comment is due to poor reading comprehension on you part.
On As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state