Do we really want to educate Democrats? -- Lafcadio T. Lion and Strawberry Sage and Friends Fun Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:26:10 12/03/04 Fri
Author: Sage
Author Host/IP: alb-69-200-14-65.nycap.rr.com / 69.200.14.65
Subject: Do we really want to educate Democrats?

I thought I'd share another rant with you. I had someone toss an article in front of me this morning. He said, "I thought you might want to write a response."

The article, which appeared in a left-leaning newspaper, was entitled "GOP wins by appealing to "know-nothings"

Yes, yet another whine from an ignorant liberal who wants us to believe that the Dems are victims of the "arrogant, smug, better-smarter-more-moral-than-you crowd." (I guess he is referring to people like me)?

He says, "Using a clever strategy of 11 referendums on gay marriage - where they aren't legal anyway - Rove and company pulled out of the woodwork all those who know nothing and care nothing about the dominant issues of the day." And "The Right Wing, composed of the Protestant Taliban, Mel Gibson Catholics, whose only concern is sex, (huh?) and right-wing Jews, who think Sharon is too liberal, do want to impose their values on everyone else and in effect say so. This same Christian Right-Wing that pushed Bush to victory simultaneously supports Israel and says all Jews will go to Hell. Why are we supposed to bow and scrape to this suffocating self-righteousness led by a pray-on-the-street-corner Pharisee of a President?"

I rose to the challenge and responded.

Dear Editor,

I would like to remind Mr. Dudley that Thomas Jefferson also said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal
hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Unlike Mr. Dudley, wise Democrats are listening to those of us who voted for President Bush. And what many of us are saying is that the moral relativism of the left has become oppressive. Secularism has been elevated to a religion in and of itself and has become tyrannical. Liberal pitbulls have been on the loose for too long. They have crossed the line of common sense, and what was considered self-evident to our Founding Fathers is obviously not so for almost half of the electorate.

Those Founding Fathers used "self-evident" to refer to concepts that, perhaps incorrectly, should be apparent to all. For instance, free speech gives us the right to say what we wish without fear of imprisonment or government censorship. They assumed that it is self-evident that we also have the right to walk away, speak out in disagreement, or to simply ignore. They said we had the right to pursue happiness. They didn't say we had a right to be happy or that we had a right to not be annoyed by hearing or seeing that which offends or bothers us.

They understood that the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion was based on man's right to think and speak freely. That laws are not to be made that promote OR inhibit a particular religion. They understood that the right to life was the basis for all other rights. That without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. The right to liberty is rendered null and void if we have laws that enable us to remove the right to life.

They were positive and hopeful about man's ability to be charitable, but did not create laws that require us to be so. They admonished against big government and its socialistic requirement for redistribution of wealth.
They understood that laws requiring that redistribution dilute and destroy individual liberty.

Look around you, Mr. Dudley. Consider the Founding Fathers' ideas regarding the scope of the federal government. Is what we have now what they had in mind? Would you like the next step in taxation to require filling out a global tax form? Did they envision a society ruled by thought police? Was the Revolutionary War fought to gain sovereignty only to
give it up to the liberal, socialist One World/One Religion fanatics?

I read it to my daughter over the phone. "Mom, you're a nut!" she said. "Do I embarrass you"" I asked. She said, "No. I'm married and I no longer have the same name."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]