One of my favorite classes I took at Colorado State University was the political debate class. I have such fond memories of learning the proper way to debate how to do a Lincoln Douglas debate, and most of all to use my wits instead of my temper. I learned how to separate out my arguments from pointless slanders and irrelevant attacks against the opposing party. I worked hard on discovering the facts of my case and theirs. I came up with responses that were not only useful but backed up by credible sources of support. I remember staying up for a week searching books and professional articles or scholarly journals gathering all I could to prepare the best arguments I could. Not only did my rhetoric have to be sound but I had to be concise and to the point because of the time limits, my arguments were checked and anticipated by the other side to look for fallacies and most of all I would gain no points for using those fallacies such as attacking the other side’s character. I had to attack their arguments not them. I had to not only anticipate their arguments but their rebuttals. It was a game of wits and truth. But most of all it was a game of research and facts.
Still after coming out of this class I had one great question? Why on earth do our politicians not use this method of debate anymore? Our current political debate system is useless. It is more of a jabbing and mudslinging contest than it is a chance for our leaders to explore all views and offer the best evidence for a point of view. There is more immaturity in our current system than there has ever been before. I hate watching political debates. It is not a place where you can learn the facts anymore. It is more of a place where candidates can attack each other not their policies. When I watch those debates I feel always that the mediator has a political slant no matter which way it is. They ask questions about age, race, personal views and then maybe what they would do if they were president. The debates are no place anymore to learn about policy. If one candidate is proposing a new way of doing things up on the hill then I want to know every argument for it and against it. I want to hear evidence from both sides not opinion. I want to hear that their claims are backed up by evidence not what their cabinet says. There are no papers for the candidates to refer to no pre asked questions that are unbiased. Questions that are often asked are meant more as insults than viable questions. There is no group of judges to check the facts and sources of the candidate’s information. Often the modern debates turn in to a game of who can overtly insult the other party than who has the best argument. I want the arguments to be timed so that each member has equal time to not only make an argument, present a rebuttal but also to not bring in any new evidence when they are not supposed to. Also I wish that all the information that the candidate brings to the table can be checked and rechecked not only by the judges but by the public. We need to see the credible sources that these candidates use to support their arguments. I want to learn about more of the facts not their opinions in these extremely important matters. I want to know the downsides and every contingency accounted for when I hear these arguments being presented to the people that they are most going to affect.
Personally I am so tired of both sides of the debate saying that they won the debate when really all they did was personally attack the other side. If our politicians cannot debate with civility than how do they expect their followers to one trust their arguments, two know the truth, and three treat the other side with respect while disagreeing with them. They set such a bad example in Washington no wonder the public feels like that they are just choosing the lesser of two evils to be the leader of the country. By using Lincoln Douglas debates I feel that this country can not only learn about the political issues their candidate supports or is against but they can be reassured that their president no matter who ends up winning will have the common sense to research every issue that is laid before them. There are times when I have done a debate that due to my research and the other parties arguments my own views were changed or at least I gave much greater attention to their views than I would ever have before. So often we can be entrenched in our own views that no matter what the other side says we will not listen but at least this style of debate makes both sides look hard at the opposing view and their support for that view. I feel that this style of debate creates a better empathy than any other style if you know not only the arguments of the other side but the reasons why you are more able to understand your opposing side. That is what is so desperately needed in this country.
Perhaps my biggest argument for this type or style of debating is that our country needs to see that those who wish to lead are better than using cheap shots and fixed questions. They need to see that our candidates know how to address issues and not their personal ego. Our countrymen need to see democracy at its best and not its worst. When other countries look at our debates they see our people at our worst. These debates need to shine for our greatest glory and not be a demonstration of our pettiness. How often our own people vote knowing nothing based on the facts or watches our current debates to see who can get the best pot shot on the other side. Personally I hate our current system of debates. They focus so much on image or age not on wits and knowledge. Our candidates need to demonstrate that they know how to obtain facts and learn about all sides of an issue. They should not focus on well if I was in charge or if things were done differently than it would be better. They slander past administrations and bring very little numerical or physical evidence to the table to support what they are spewing out of their mouths.
I feel that our country does not look at the beauty of our debate system. It has been turned into something that is not so comely. If anything what I am driving at is that our country needs first and foremost examples of good character and hard work. Instead we get celebrities and heir and heiresses and nut cases that are running for and conducting our political system. Our debates could make a huge difference in people’s opinions and the way they vote. Our current system only seems to solidify our current biases and closed-minded, uniformed views about issues. Many Americans do not view our debates as an exchange of well constructed arguments that are for the informing of our people. No they view them more as a boxing match. Our candidates dodge blows and land verbal punches on one another instead of trying to convince the public that the side of their argument is for the best of those who they mean to lead. We need to show our children that our candidates are smart and well read not good at making jokes and insults. All we see is distrust between those who are debating. They demonstrate a lack of respect for one another. This is not the essence of democracy that our children are taught to revere and believe. This is just a demonstration of name calling, and pouting rather than seasoned professionals making real arguments that are well informed. We need to take our debate system and examine it with a cold eye. First do they provide us with real information or just fallacies and mudslinging? Two are we actually learning anything positive from these debates? Are our opinions being affected by these debates? Do these debates enhance our knowledge or create further frustration with our government and those who lead our party? These questions I feel are not being answered positively with our current political debating system. Change is needed for the government and for our citizens. We live in the information age. It is time we get that information from those who wish to lead us into a better future. I have railed enough on this system of debating. Perhaps our televised debating system should just disappear all together, but we know that that chance is slim. Still a change would be welcome by those who are looking for and expect more from their candidates than just a good show.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Bad political debate syestem
One of my favorite classes I took at Colorado State University was the political debate class. I have such fond memories of learning the proper way to debate how to do a Lincoln Douglas debate, and most of all to use my wits instead of my temper. I learned how to separate out my arguments from pointless slanders and irrelevant attacks against the opposing party. I worked hard on discovering the facts of my case and theirs. I came up with responses that were not only useful but backed up by credible sources of support. I remember staying up for a week searching books and professional articles or scholarly journals gathering all I could to prepare the best arguments I could. Not only did my rhetoric have to be sound but I had to be concise and to the point because of the time limits, my arguments were checked and anticipated by the other side to look for fallacies and most of all I would gain no points for using those fallacies such as attacking the other side’s character. I had to attack their arguments not them. I had to not only anticipate their arguments but their rebuttals. It was a game of wits and truth. But most of all it was a game of research and facts.
Still after coming out of this class I had one great question? Why on earth do our politicians not use this method of debate anymore? Our current political debate system is useless. It is more of a jabbing and mudslinging contest than it is a chance for our leaders to explore all views and offer the best evidence for a point of view. There is more immaturity in our current system than there has ever been before. I hate watching political debates. It is not a place where you can learn the facts anymore. It is more of a place where candidates can attack each other not their policies. When I watch those debates I feel always that the mediator has a political slant no matter which way it is. They ask questions about age, race, personal views and then maybe what they would do if they were president. The debates are no place anymore to learn about policy. If one candidate is proposing a new way of doing things up on the hill then I want to know every argument for it and against it. I want to hear evidence from both sides not opinion. I want to hear that their claims are backed up by evidence not what their cabinet says. There are no papers for the candidates to refer to no pre asked questions that are unbiased. Questions that are often asked are meant more as insults than viable questions. There is no group of judges to check the facts and sources of the candidate’s information. Often the modern debates turn in to a game of who can overtly insult the other party than who has the best argument. I want the arguments to be timed so that each member has equal time to not only make an argument, present a rebuttal but also to not bring in any new evidence when they are not supposed to. Also I wish that all the information that the candidate brings to the table can be checked and rechecked not only by the judges but by the public. We need to see the credible sources that these candidates use to support their arguments. I want to learn about more of the facts not their opinions in these extremely important matters. I want to know the downsides and every contingency accounted for when I hear these arguments being presented to the people that they are most going to affect.
Personally I am so tired of both sides of the debate saying that they won the debate when really all they did was personally attack the other side. If our politicians cannot debate with civility than how do they expect their followers to one trust their arguments, two know the truth, and three treat the other side with respect while disagreeing with them. They set such a bad example in Washington no wonder the public feels like that they are just choosing the lesser of two evils to be the leader of the country. By using Lincoln Douglas debates I feel that this country can not only learn about the political issues their candidate supports or is against but they can be reassured that their president no matter who ends up winning will have the common sense to research every issue that is laid before them. There are times when I have done a debate that due to my research and the other parties arguments my own views were changed or at least I gave much greater attention to their views than I would ever have before. So often we can be entrenched in our own views that no matter what the other side says we will not listen but at least this style of debate makes both sides look hard at the opposing view and their support for that view. I feel that this style of debate creates a better empathy than any other style if you know not only the arguments of the other side but the reasons why you are more able to understand your opposing side. That is what is so desperately needed in this country.
Perhaps my biggest argument for this type or style of debating is that our country needs to see that those who wish to lead are better than using cheap shots and fixed questions. They need to see that our candidates know how to address issues and not their personal ego. Our countrymen need to see democracy at its best and not its worst. When other countries look at our debates they see our people at our worst. These debates need to shine for our greatest glory and not be a demonstration of our pettiness. How often our own people vote knowing nothing based on the facts or watches our current debates to see who can get the best pot shot on the other side. Personally I hate our current system of debates. They focus so much on image or age not on wits and knowledge. Our candidates need to demonstrate that they know how to obtain facts and learn about all sides of an issue. They should not focus on well if I was in charge or if things were done differently than it would be better. They slander past administrations and bring very little numerical or physical evidence to the table to support what they are spewing out of their mouths.
I feel that our country does not look at the beauty of our debate system. It has been turned into something that is not so comely. If anything what I am driving at is that our country needs first and foremost examples of good character and hard work. Instead we get celebrities and heir and heiresses and nut cases that are running for and conducting our political system. Our debates could make a huge difference in people’s opinions and the way they vote. Our current system only seems to solidify our current biases and closed-minded, uniformed views about issues. Many Americans do not view our debates as an exchange of well constructed arguments that are for the informing of our people. No they view them more as a boxing match. Our candidates dodge blows and land verbal punches on one another instead of trying to convince the public that the side of their argument is for the best of those who they mean to lead. We need to show our children that our candidates are smart and well read not good at making jokes and insults. All we see is distrust between those who are debating. They demonstrate a lack of respect for one another. This is not the essence of democracy that our children are taught to revere and believe. This is just a demonstration of name calling, and pouting rather than seasoned professionals making real arguments that are well informed. We need to take our debate system and examine it with a cold eye. First do they provide us with real information or just fallacies and mudslinging? Two are we actually learning anything positive from these debates? Are our opinions being affected by these debates? Do these debates enhance our knowledge or create further frustration with our government and those who lead our party? These questions I feel are not being answered positively with our current political debating system. Change is needed for the government and for our citizens. We live in the information age. It is time we get that information from those who wish to lead us into a better future. I have railed enough on this system of debating. Perhaps our televised debating system should just disappear all together, but we know that that chance is slim. Still a change would be welcome by those who are looking for and expect more from their candidates than just a good show.
Still after coming out of this class I had one great question? Why on earth do our politicians not use this method of debate anymore? Our current political debate system is useless. It is more of a jabbing and mudslinging contest than it is a chance for our leaders to explore all views and offer the best evidence for a point of view. There is more immaturity in our current system than there has ever been before. I hate watching political debates. It is not a place where you can learn the facts anymore. It is more of a place where candidates can attack each other not their policies. When I watch those debates I feel always that the mediator has a political slant no matter which way it is. They ask questions about age, race, personal views and then maybe what they would do if they were president. The debates are no place anymore to learn about policy. If one candidate is proposing a new way of doing things up on the hill then I want to know every argument for it and against it. I want to hear evidence from both sides not opinion. I want to hear that their claims are backed up by evidence not what their cabinet says. There are no papers for the candidates to refer to no pre asked questions that are unbiased. Questions that are often asked are meant more as insults than viable questions. There is no group of judges to check the facts and sources of the candidate’s information. Often the modern debates turn in to a game of who can overtly insult the other party than who has the best argument. I want the arguments to be timed so that each member has equal time to not only make an argument, present a rebuttal but also to not bring in any new evidence when they are not supposed to. Also I wish that all the information that the candidate brings to the table can be checked and rechecked not only by the judges but by the public. We need to see the credible sources that these candidates use to support their arguments. I want to learn about more of the facts not their opinions in these extremely important matters. I want to know the downsides and every contingency accounted for when I hear these arguments being presented to the people that they are most going to affect.
Personally I am so tired of both sides of the debate saying that they won the debate when really all they did was personally attack the other side. If our politicians cannot debate with civility than how do they expect their followers to one trust their arguments, two know the truth, and three treat the other side with respect while disagreeing with them. They set such a bad example in Washington no wonder the public feels like that they are just choosing the lesser of two evils to be the leader of the country. By using Lincoln Douglas debates I feel that this country can not only learn about the political issues their candidate supports or is against but they can be reassured that their president no matter who ends up winning will have the common sense to research every issue that is laid before them. There are times when I have done a debate that due to my research and the other parties arguments my own views were changed or at least I gave much greater attention to their views than I would ever have before. So often we can be entrenched in our own views that no matter what the other side says we will not listen but at least this style of debate makes both sides look hard at the opposing view and their support for that view. I feel that this style of debate creates a better empathy than any other style if you know not only the arguments of the other side but the reasons why you are more able to understand your opposing side. That is what is so desperately needed in this country.
Perhaps my biggest argument for this type or style of debating is that our country needs to see that those who wish to lead are better than using cheap shots and fixed questions. They need to see that our candidates know how to address issues and not their personal ego. Our countrymen need to see democracy at its best and not its worst. When other countries look at our debates they see our people at our worst. These debates need to shine for our greatest glory and not be a demonstration of our pettiness. How often our own people vote knowing nothing based on the facts or watches our current debates to see who can get the best pot shot on the other side. Personally I hate our current system of debates. They focus so much on image or age not on wits and knowledge. Our candidates need to demonstrate that they know how to obtain facts and learn about all sides of an issue. They should not focus on well if I was in charge or if things were done differently than it would be better. They slander past administrations and bring very little numerical or physical evidence to the table to support what they are spewing out of their mouths.
I feel that our country does not look at the beauty of our debate system. It has been turned into something that is not so comely. If anything what I am driving at is that our country needs first and foremost examples of good character and hard work. Instead we get celebrities and heir and heiresses and nut cases that are running for and conducting our political system. Our debates could make a huge difference in people’s opinions and the way they vote. Our current system only seems to solidify our current biases and closed-minded, uniformed views about issues. Many Americans do not view our debates as an exchange of well constructed arguments that are for the informing of our people. No they view them more as a boxing match. Our candidates dodge blows and land verbal punches on one another instead of trying to convince the public that the side of their argument is for the best of those who they mean to lead. We need to show our children that our candidates are smart and well read not good at making jokes and insults. All we see is distrust between those who are debating. They demonstrate a lack of respect for one another. This is not the essence of democracy that our children are taught to revere and believe. This is just a demonstration of name calling, and pouting rather than seasoned professionals making real arguments that are well informed. We need to take our debate system and examine it with a cold eye. First do they provide us with real information or just fallacies and mudslinging? Two are we actually learning anything positive from these debates? Are our opinions being affected by these debates? Do these debates enhance our knowledge or create further frustration with our government and those who lead our party? These questions I feel are not being answered positively with our current political debating system. Change is needed for the government and for our citizens. We live in the information age. It is time we get that information from those who wish to lead us into a better future. I have railed enough on this system of debating. Perhaps our televised debating system should just disappear all together, but we know that that chance is slim. Still a change would be welcome by those who are looking for and expect more from their candidates than just a good show.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Rhetoric and Religion
Throughout the United States political history our presidents have or have not chosen to use their religious beliefs in their rhetoric. Now in our current society the people of this country are so zealous about cutting out religion from rhetoric that they are in a way asking our candidates to not talk about a fundamental portion of their lives. our country since the beginning has stated in our constitution that there is to be a separation between church and state. However I feel that many people do not take the time to know that first that statement means that the church cannot run the government nor can the government run the church. Second in this modern era our citizens are so ignorant to the fact that religion no matter what religion they followed, it was very prevalent in our president’s speeches and everyday rhetoric. My purpose is to point out different quotes from presidents rhetoric concerning religion and the state or how religious affiliation affected their everyday lives.
I think that it is appropriate to go from beginning to end. Our very first president the founder of our presidential system and example to all presidents after him was grounded in scientific thought and loved democracy with a passion he was a man of few speeches compared to our current president. However in his rhetoric there are religious quotes and quotes concerning religion. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]. Another quote from our first president concerning religion, “The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.” Now many believed that these quotes support the claim that Mr. Washington was a atheist, however these quotes do show that his views about religion were included in his rhetoric.
Our next president John Adams had several quotes about religion in his own rhetoric. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” “The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” These men both were profound thinkers of their time. Yet even they used their religion in their rhetoric. Or they spoke of topics concerning religion in their rhetoric. At this time in our countries history people were really scared that the church may be in charge of the government instead of the people they were afraid of another roman church.
Another of our founding fathers used religion in his rhetoric however like the other two it is not in the context that many people think it was. "The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ." Jefferson like those before him was very liberal in thought and believed that men had the right to do what they please with themselves concerning religion so when it comes to others asking him about scandal between him and some pastors his rhetoric clearly demonstrates his feelings about religious or as he said any kind of tyranny from church, man or government.
Skipping ahead a little our president Andrew Jackson often spoke of his beliefs in his rhetoric and used quotes from the Bible to speak about what he believed. Does this mean that his religious rhetoric affected his policy well maybe yes and maybe no however he was not afraid to use religion in his rhetoric. "Go to the Scriptures...the joyful promises it contains will be a balsam to all your troubles. That book...is the rock on which our republic rests." "Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy...The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Was this man afraid to show the world his beliefs? Well no he was not. He was not afraid to show his beliefs in his rhetoric as well. I for one am proud that even though there was pressure for him not to mix his religious view into his rhetoric he did so because he believed it was right. I honestly believe that no matter who is president they should not hide what they believe and if their religion is such a big part of their lives than we should expect to see that religion in their speeches and their addresses. The country wants honest people not people pleasers so I think that he is honorable for stating so clearly in his speeches his beliefs. Even Teddy Roosevelt spoke of religion in his speeches. “A thorough understanding of the Bible is better than a college education.” Did these men allow their faith to rule the country? I believe no that is why they set up a democracy so that there could be checks and balances. However I do believe that for the better they allowed their religious views to help influence their decisions concerning this country and they let the people know that by using their rhetoric to convey that decision making process.
Now days there are example of religious rhetoric in our modern presidents. It is my view and honor to say that I supported President George W Bush when he used the Bible in his rhetoric and his speeches. he spoke openly about his beliefs and hi speeches openly spoke about his beliefs. He is a man that loves the Lord and is not afraid to show it. Now i would have voted for him if I could simply because his rhetoric spoke so boldly about how he believes in Christ and is going to ask for his guidance in his policy decisions. Many people were upset with this and talked about separation between religion and state. Still we knew his intentions and I believe that because he used religion in his rhetoric the people knew exactly what they were getting when they were voting for him. They were not deceived at all by his words when it came to his beliefs. "...The God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship. That doesn't make me think I'm a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own." "My faith plays a big part in my life. And when I was answering that question what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very, it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls .But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.”
I honestly believe that religion is going to be a further part of our president’s rhetoric no matter what they believe. As Americans we should know and accept that. What a man believes is the reason why we vote for him to be our leader. If he chooses to I think that it should be ok for him or her to use religion in their rhetoric. No I endorse it. Yes there is such thing as separation between religion and state however there is nothing that says there should be a separation between a man of religious faith and working for the state. This country is about the people’s right first and foremost. The right to freedom of speech extends of political rhetoric contain religious quotations. We cannot and should not ever take that away or we will lose our ability to be called a truly free nation.
Places where I got the quotes
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_GWashington.htm
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_adams/
http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
http://www.eadshome.com/Andrew%20Jackson.htm
http://www.talkjesus.com/lounge/22490-bible-quotes-famous-people.html
I think that it is appropriate to go from beginning to end. Our very first president the founder of our presidential system and example to all presidents after him was grounded in scientific thought and loved democracy with a passion he was a man of few speeches compared to our current president. However in his rhetoric there are religious quotes and quotes concerning religion. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]. Another quote from our first president concerning religion, “The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.” Now many believed that these quotes support the claim that Mr. Washington was a atheist, however these quotes do show that his views about religion were included in his rhetoric.
Our next president John Adams had several quotes about religion in his own rhetoric. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” “The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” These men both were profound thinkers of their time. Yet even they used their religion in their rhetoric. Or they spoke of topics concerning religion in their rhetoric. At this time in our countries history people were really scared that the church may be in charge of the government instead of the people they were afraid of another roman church.
Another of our founding fathers used religion in his rhetoric however like the other two it is not in the context that many people think it was. "The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ." Jefferson like those before him was very liberal in thought and believed that men had the right to do what they please with themselves concerning religion so when it comes to others asking him about scandal between him and some pastors his rhetoric clearly demonstrates his feelings about religious or as he said any kind of tyranny from church, man or government.
Skipping ahead a little our president Andrew Jackson often spoke of his beliefs in his rhetoric and used quotes from the Bible to speak about what he believed. Does this mean that his religious rhetoric affected his policy well maybe yes and maybe no however he was not afraid to use religion in his rhetoric. "Go to the Scriptures...the joyful promises it contains will be a balsam to all your troubles. That book...is the rock on which our republic rests." "Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy...The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Was this man afraid to show the world his beliefs? Well no he was not. He was not afraid to show his beliefs in his rhetoric as well. I for one am proud that even though there was pressure for him not to mix his religious view into his rhetoric he did so because he believed it was right. I honestly believe that no matter who is president they should not hide what they believe and if their religion is such a big part of their lives than we should expect to see that religion in their speeches and their addresses. The country wants honest people not people pleasers so I think that he is honorable for stating so clearly in his speeches his beliefs. Even Teddy Roosevelt spoke of religion in his speeches. “A thorough understanding of the Bible is better than a college education.” Did these men allow their faith to rule the country? I believe no that is why they set up a democracy so that there could be checks and balances. However I do believe that for the better they allowed their religious views to help influence their decisions concerning this country and they let the people know that by using their rhetoric to convey that decision making process.
Now days there are example of religious rhetoric in our modern presidents. It is my view and honor to say that I supported President George W Bush when he used the Bible in his rhetoric and his speeches. he spoke openly about his beliefs and hi speeches openly spoke about his beliefs. He is a man that loves the Lord and is not afraid to show it. Now i would have voted for him if I could simply because his rhetoric spoke so boldly about how he believes in Christ and is going to ask for his guidance in his policy decisions. Many people were upset with this and talked about separation between religion and state. Still we knew his intentions and I believe that because he used religion in his rhetoric the people knew exactly what they were getting when they were voting for him. They were not deceived at all by his words when it came to his beliefs. "...The God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship. That doesn't make me think I'm a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own." "My faith plays a big part in my life. And when I was answering that question what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very, it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls .But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.”
I honestly believe that religion is going to be a further part of our president’s rhetoric no matter what they believe. As Americans we should know and accept that. What a man believes is the reason why we vote for him to be our leader. If he chooses to I think that it should be ok for him or her to use religion in their rhetoric. No I endorse it. Yes there is such thing as separation between religion and state however there is nothing that says there should be a separation between a man of religious faith and working for the state. This country is about the people’s right first and foremost. The right to freedom of speech extends of political rhetoric contain religious quotations. We cannot and should not ever take that away or we will lose our ability to be called a truly free nation.
Places where I got the quotes
http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_GWashington.htm
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/john_adams/
http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
http://www.eadshome.com/Andrew%20Jackson.htm
http://www.talkjesus.com/lounge/22490-bible-quotes-famous-people.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)