I take great offense to your response. Nowhere in my post did I say education was a bad thing or knock education. Talk about logical facilicies. Try your ad hominem attacks. THAT wouldn't pass a high school debate. I concentrated on the Second Amendment because it is of supreme importance to me and this is "Weatherby Nation" - a firearms board - full of pro-gun people.
My point about Huckabee and Evolution was that no matter where he stood on Eveolution, if he wanted to abolish the teaching of it, it would not have enough votes for it to pass one of the two political caucuses, let alone one of the chambers of Congress. We are able to formulate our own ideals and beliefs and disagree in the political arena. Look at Ron Paul, he is a very educated man, a doctor, who is out there on the fringe on certain issues, and he gets nowhere in Congress on those issues.  Does that make him stupid? Nowhere did I deny the scienctific evidence of Evolution, or that Evolution isn't real. I wasn't even arguing one way or the other on Evolution. There are many well-educated people out there though who do deny Evolution because of religious beliefs. You are right when you say it isn't evidence-driven, it is emotion-driven; faith-based.  You have professors who don't believe in Evolution who are highly-educated and intelligent.  They have far-more than the 11th-grade education that you state people who don't believe in Evolution have. That doesn't make them ignorant.  They choose to believe in faith over science on the development of the world. I would dare to guess these men and women who have that value system are far more-educated than you are.  Yes I know these these men and women who deny Evolution are not running for President like Huckabee is.
You take an ad hominem approach to argumentation.  It is easy to make personal attacks. I'll bet if Mitt Romney, a Havard-educated attorney, was asked about Evolution, because of this Mormon values, very well may deny Evolution. And no, not all Mormons or extremely religous people deny Evolution.Â
You attack Huckabee on his denial of Evolution, is there any other issue you disagree with him on?  Or do you deny him on a single isssue? Isn't that as single-issue as my pro-gun stance? You attack me for being single-issue.  I contrated my post on the Second Amendment because this is a gun message board, but I DO think the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.  Cliche yes, just like the saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. I believe that statement too. Huckabee is a fiscal conservative and I agree with him on that too.  For moral reasons I support his pro-life stance. We can open up a huge can of worms arguing abortion, but why? There are more reasons that the gun issue on why I back Huckabee. Maybe I stated it poorly, but I don't care what Huckabee believes on Evolution because he won't go anywhere with it, just like Paul does on his fringe issues. Who is to say that he would try to push that agenda anyways?
You said all the candidates are idiots. What do you do, not vote? I wish I had a better choice than Huckabee, but I don't. Huckabee does put his foot in his mouth at times, but to me he is the best choice of the bunch. There is only one candidate you will every agree with 100% and that is if you ran yourself.Â
Your signature on this board is home of the free, BECAUSE of the brave. I couldn't agree more with that. As I said I think McCain is a man of good character and I respect him so much for being one of those brave. Those brave fought and died so we could vote and participate in the electoral process. Or since all the candidates are idiots are you doing nothing? Education and intelligence is important, but so is character. Character is not evidence driven, it is morals driven. That is why I can't support Romney. His flip-flopping to me is a lack of character There are many reasons to support a candidate and to me the gun issue is obviously important. I think Huckabee is a man of good character, and this is othing in his make-up that would make me believe otherwise.
Maybe you should read Washingtons's Farewell Address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
According to your agrgument this would be dogma and of course we couldn't support Washington as President. Religion is not evidence-based. It is emotion-based and according you you we couldn't have that. And throw out the Declaration of Independence because it asks that we rely on devine Providence.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Devine Providence is not logic-based, so I guess Jefferson failed your test too. Our Founding Fathers were very religious men who used these beliefs to govern. Our Pledge of Allegience has "one nation under God". Definately not logic-based there too. When our President is sworn in he has his hand oon what book? Could it be a bible?Maybe you should take your own advice and crack open an US History book and read it. Learn. Imagine that.
35 Replies
14931 Views