Welcome to the IPF Message Boards. Forum Index
Return to IndaPhatFarm.com
Welcome to the IPF Message Boards.
Registration is not a requirement. Please feel free to do so. Welcome Home.
 
 FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Thank you, Ben!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Welcome to the IPF Message Boards. Forum Index -> 'Dear IPF Columnist(s) & Webmaster(s).....'
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:01 pm    Post subject: Thank you, Ben! Reply with quote

Amen! Smile Thank you so much for your inspiration, i was beginning to think that I was the only one left thinking that we need to stick to our morality, than worrying about our wallets. Thanks once again.
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it sounds like "how the grinch stole christmas"
Back to top

Author Message
the flash
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:17 pm    Post subject: ben's post Reply with quote

To answer your question "when did morality stop becoming the foremost concern for us as Christians?": since George W. Bush. Voting for president necessitates a totally different view on "moral" issues given the different tasks that the president holds. Sadly, most of us only discovered this fact over the last eight years.
What are the president's main duties in office? Besides being commander-in-chief of our armed forces, the representative of the United States to the world, one who appoints Supreme Court Justices, his cabinet, ambassadors, etc. , the President is an executive ENFORCER OF LAWS AS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THOSE WRITTEN IN CONGRESS. Furthermore, issues regarding homosexual unions and abortion are largely decided upon on a state level, not federal.
However, those are not the only moral issues at stake here. Bush and Cheney, one of the least moral executive tandems in US history, misused the powers vested in them, fueled by people's fears to turn the government into an authoritarian, despicable power, one that threatens the very fabric of our democracy. This same president, for whom we voted on the advice of men like James Dobson(for whom I have utmost respect), is the one who called our constitution a "piece of paper", denied the torture going on in American prisons as evidence poured in from Iraq and Cuba to the contrary, pardoned a criminal, Scooter Libby, for his personal interests. Morals?
I could go on, but I won't for now. Stay informed.
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand your disillusionment. However, I would not be so quick to call the Bush administration an enemy of democracy. I certainly would not call them the least moral. Know your history. Nixon's and Clinton's administration were shrouded by scandal and corruption. In fact both were nearly impeached. Nixon resigned.

Of Bush's corruption and the war in Iraq there is a lot of speculation. But the war is almost over. Democracy is being established in a place where one of the most volatile and ruthless dicatators once oppressed. How can you call this a threat to the fabric of democracy? War, by the way, is never squeaky clean. It is a necessary evil.

Second, you say that issues such as abortion and homosexual unions are generally a state issue, that they should not be a concern in a presidential race. I beg to differ. Bush passed a ban on partial birth abortion that Clinton had formerly vetoed--twice. Furthermore, as you said, one of the excutive duties is to fill the seats of retiring judges in the supreme court-- yes, that branch of office that decided the infamous ROe v. Wade in the forst place. The next president will be filling the seats of at least two judges. If Obama were to win, he would have not only a majority in Congress but also a liberal bench. Any liberal legislation lobbied from any level would go unchechecked even if it were appealed to the highest court in the land!

Once again your disillusionment is well understood, and in the end Obama may likely win. But McCain should have been judged in his own right. He is not Bush. But we must always vote our conscience. And we should not be content just to vote. We should voice our concerns to our representatives. Voting for a president is not the only step we should take is what I am saying, but it is by no means insignificant when it comes to these issues.

--Ben Harris
Back to top

Author Message
the flash
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand your disillusionment. However, I would not be so quick to call the Bush administration an enemy of democracy. I certainly would not call them the least moral. Know your history. Nixon's and Clinton's administration were shrouded by scandal and corruption. In fact both were nearly impeached. Nixon resigned.

Of Bush's corruption and the war in Iraq there is a lot of speculation. But the war is almost over. Democracy is being established in a place where one of the most volatile and ruthless dicatators once oppressed. How can you call this a threat to the fabric of democracy? War, by the way, is never squeaky clean. It is a necessary evil.

Second, you say that issues such as abortion and homosexual unions are generally a state issue, that they should not be a concern in a presidential race. I beg to differ. Bush passed a ban on partial birth abortion that Clinton had formerly vetoed--twice. Furthermore, as you said, one of the excutive duties is to fill the seats of retiring judges in the supreme court-- yes, that branch of office that decided the infamous ROe v. Wade in the forst place. The next president will be filling the seats of at least two judges. If Obama were to win, he would have not only a majority in Congress but also a liberal bench. Any liberal legislation lobbied from any level would go unchechecked even if it were appealed to the highest court in the land!

Once again your disillusionment is well understood, and in the end Obama may likely win. But McCain should have been judged in his own right. He is not Bush. But we must always vote our conscience. And we should not be content just to vote. We should voice our concerns to our representatives. Voting for a president is not the only step we should take is what I am saying, but it is by no means insignificant when it comes to these issues.

--Ben Harris


Now that Obama has won, I will respond to your post. First, Florida and Arizona both passed bans on homosexual unions tonight, thus proving that the measure that gives the states the decision to decide upon this issue still stands. Furthermore, I did not call Bush and Cheney the most morally bankrupt presidential tandem in history, but one must admit that they are among the most immoral: using their power to deceive the American people into believing that we were actually going to Iraq because of "Saddam Hussein's connection to Al Queda" or when that didn't work, "weapons of mass destruction". Have we forgotten about the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act? George W. Bush misused his powers in the White House and, therefore, threatened the core principles of Habeus Corpus. If he had half the control over the government and half the decency that Richard Nixon had, he would have RESIGNED, for his legacy's sake and for the sake of the country.
Is it just coincidence that John McCain made a similar mistake with Al Queda and the insurgents in Iraq? Is it a coincidence that McCain blatantly shares Bush's views on the economy, the war in Iraq(I specify because this is not the war we should be fighting), and energy? But, because Obama won, I digress. Morals encompass more than homosexual unions or abortion laws. Stay informed on this historic day (that, just for the sake of this argument, marks the 2,015th day since "mission accomplished"was declared in Iraq)
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree of course that moral issues encompass more than abortion or homosexual marriages, but these are the most crucial ones. It seems that you are so disturbed and angry about the Patriot act and the Military Commissions Act (which by the way do not prove anything about Bush's corruption), but you belittle the holocaust that is going on with 40+ million babies murdered. Does that sink in at all? Probably not. For many Christians, it is something we have given up on, or like you, have swept under the carpet as a mute point.

As for your contentment that two states passed bans on homosexual unions, I have several points to make. First, a liberal supreme court could, if given the opportunity, deem these state laws unconstitutional. Secondly, Obama himself does not consider this just a state issue. I will now insert a quote from lifecitenews.com which in turn quotes Obama in his speech to Planned Parenthood.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.


So much for being informed. The last thing I want to say in reference to those mini victories in Arizona, Florida, and California is that those were largely due to the joint efforts of Christians, Mormons and Catholics. They raised over 30 million dollars to advertise and inform conservative voters of the issues at stake. My point, my friend, is not to prove Bush's integrity or to demonize Obama. The point is your attitude toward these issues, which I hope is not a reflection of mindset of the body of Christ.

Obama liberal stances go far beyond abortion or gay rights by the way. Obama has promised to intiate a “Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.” The problem is that these faith-based organizations will lose the right to "discriminate" on who they can hire. This will include Christian schools and colleges, to name a few. see this link:
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/07/01/obamas-faith-based-plan-falls-short/

I, being a Black American myself, am proud of what Obama has accomplished. I also happen to like his economic and health care plans better than I liked McCain's. But his liberal stances disqualified him from being an option for me. Obviously, that matters little now.
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I, being a Black American myself, am proud of what Obama has accomplished. I also happen to like his economic and health care plans better than I liked McCain's. But his liberal stances disqualified him from being an option for me. Obviously, that matters little now.

wow your in the minority!
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ben we'll miss your updates now that u'll be married soon Sad
Back to top

Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congrats Ben! All the best.
Back to top

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Welcome to the IPF Message Boards. Forum Index -> 'Dear IPF Columnist(s) & Webmaster(s).....' All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Design by SkaidonDesigns for Forum-Styles(dot)co(dot)uk