Some Reasons To Vote . . . : LUSENET : A.M.E. Today Discussion : One Thread

There are many reasons to vote in the upcoming presidential election. I thought I'd share some reasons to vote for President Bush: Secretary fo State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condilezza Rice, Education Secretary Rod Paige, FCC Chairman Michael Powell, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, the Deputy Attorny General. . . There never has been so many of the sable hue serving in such high level critical positions in our history. None of these folks have been given their "props" by the Black community because they are Republicians and serve in a republician administration, I am fully convinced that history will vindicate them.

There are many others that I plan to research later.

Be Blessed pastor paris

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2004


Good reasons,Bro. Al.

Do you think Powell will still be around for the second term - I think I recall hearing that he would not. I s'pect Condi will still be with us.

Some other reasons for supporting Bush is that Kerry will not be able to deliver most of what he is promoting. Also, the Democrats still support unhindered abortion for the term of the pregnancy. I would feel quite uncomfortable with his appointing the next Supreme Court justice(s) over the next four years. And he's from liberal Massachusettes, a state which sends has repeatedly sent an openly homosexual representative to Congress, repeatedly sent a person responsible for the death of a woman after driving off a bridge to the Senate, and which approves homosexual marriage.

I suppose guilt by association may not be entirely fair, but Kerry is considered among the most liberal of the senators.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2004

What I'm about to say is rather long but what else is new :-) The basic political problem with the black church in America is her incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party. We are more concerned about symbols than substance. The Democratic Party machine uses the black church like a cheap whore. I stand by my frank analogy. Once their officials are elected into office they become unaccountable. Kerry talks about the historic lost of jobs during the Bush Presidency yet fails to remind voters that Bush's advisors were correctly predicting a recession in late 2000 which Kerry and the Democrats strenuously rejected as GOP scare tactics. Well, when 2001 rolled around the US economy did in fact enter a recesssion as the macroeconomists forecasted and this lowered job growth and contributed to the rising deficit. The economic truth is this - government is not the source of job creation. Sustainable job growth occurs through the private sector where companies assume risk, technolgy and market demand are favorable to invest in American workers. Government can help by making the climate conducive to invest but neither Kerry or Bush can actually "make" a company hire a worker or stop out-sourcing US jobs (Kerry's flip-flopping on outsourcing disqualifies him as a Presidential contender in my view).

Senator Edwards demagouges the issue of stem cell research by proclaiming recently that President Bush's policy towards cell stems was a contributing factor to the death of "Superman" Christopher Reeve. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge in this area of science will tell you that statement by Edwards was a flagrant distortion of the truth and completely irresponsible. The same is true concerning Senator Kerry's repeated remarks about his touted prescription drug proposal which emphasizes re-importing pharmaceutical drugs from Canadian distributors. As the NY Times points out today the Kerry plan will have little to no effect on reduced drug prices in the US because manaufacturers of such drugs will adjust price to refelct underlining market conditions. Economists who teach and research in this area (present company included) have long warned against such schemes (Kerry Plan) as being "pie in the sky".

Because the black church has entered into a shotgun marriage with the Democratic Party she is reluctant to openly confront the party bosses about issues which are central to the mission of the church - religious tolerance, morality & family planning. More importantly, what will the black church do if Bush happens to be re-elected??? Will we have four more years of protest or will we execute some type of contigency plan?

For example, the US Supreme Court announced earlier this week that it has agreed to hear oral arguments about a controversial case involving the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. Plaintiffs are basing their argument that such displays of a religious symbol in public places violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (i.e church-state seperation). I have monitored this message board since the High Court's decision to hear this case but it is interesting that no one has initiated a thread about the implications of the Court's decision. Does the AMEC wish to be identified as being "oppossed to the display of the Ten Commandments" in public places when even the Decalouge is on display in the halls of the US Supreme Court? Rhenquist, Thomas & Scalia have indicated in similar rulings that they do not see a violation of the Establishment Clause. Will the AMEC side with the atheists and critics simply because their jurisprudence differs from that of the above Justices?

The Black Church is silent on abortion or family planning because we don't want to upset our feminist colleagues. Roe v. Wade is based on specious legal jurisprudence. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution. It is a fiction and any non-partisan ABA lawyer will admit this point. I fully support a Constitutional Amendment which will define marriage as a contractual arrangement between a man ad a woman. I couldn't care less about gay rights activists rejections because the same US Constitution was used to outlaw slavery and Jim Crow. Why are black folks hiding behind the cloak of "states rights" on this issue when historically "states rights" has been the sworn enemy of black disenfranchisement? Rev. Jesse Jackson's rejection of the Marrage Proposal is prima facie evidence why he is a moral midget on matters pertaining ethics and family mores.

Because of our fear that the GOP will retreat on matters pertaining to racial justice we vote Democratic and join forces with feminists and atheists who insist on abortion rights as a central place in American politics. It's a Faustian agremment which I'm uncomfortable in accpeting. As I have stated before, abortion is tantamount to infanticide. We decry the injustice of capital punishment yet look the other way when innocent fetuses are arbitrarily terminated. I'm afraid we (black church) are on the verge of losing our moral equilibrium on matters pertaining to ethics and morality. QED

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2004

As long as the Black church is in line with the will of God that is all that matters. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Saducees and redeemed the sinner and sat at their table. We must remember to hide the Word of God in our hearts and do what is right, individually and collectively and I am confident God will do the rest.

Personally, I do not care whom AMEs vote for. I do care that we vote and that we vote in line with our prayer life and the instructions of the Almighty. I care that all votes are counted throughout the country, whether they be Black or White.

-- Anonymous, October 17, 2004

Mary -

Is it your opinion that the black church's position on abortion (ambiguous at best) is "in line with the will of God"? QED

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

"Is it your opinion that the black church's position on abortion (ambiguous at best) is "in line with the will of God"? QED "

Bill, I have not heard any particular denomination's position on abortion, but the churches that I have attended all affirm that abortion is wrong. That is my position as well; however, I do not want to see our clergy in the role of the Pharisees capturing the woman in the very act to bring her before Jesus for condemnation.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

This is pure commentary, not directed towards anyone in particular, but rather just a general statement of my view...

Hypocracy and blind partisanship are the bedfellows and supporters for the current administration. Party politics aside - can anyone think of a more incompetent, disasterous administration in recent history than the one we have now? On what basis has the present administration earned a second term? Are you, your neighbor, your community, this country or the world better off today than it was prior to George Bush? I submit that no thinking person of good conscience could possibly cast a vote for 4 more years of Bush leadership. Look at the record. How many presidents - true or not - can be said to have 'stole' the election? How many presidents have given tax breaks to the rich while giving $300 to the middle class. Record deficit, war and terrorism, lost jobs, low wages, divided populas, alienated allies, and the disdain of the world. For crying out loud! Its true, politicians of any stripe are not to be trusted. However, as the old saying goes, fool me once - shame on you - fool me twice - shame on me.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

Somebody please refresh my memory. What official documents exist from the Commission on Social Action that demonstrates the AMEC is opposed to abortion? It would seem like this topic would fall under the duties of this Commission according to my interpretation of page 228 of the 2000 Discipline. On last evening I took my children to FAMU so that they could see a Presidential rally in person (Sen. John Edwards addressed the crowd). I have attended many Democratic rallies and not once have I ever been given a flyer which was "pro- life". It is pretty clear that the mainstream Democratic Party is intolerant to anti-abortion views or the repeal of Roe v. Wade. QED

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

Bro. Dickens,

May I interject? You consistantly demagogue the 'Right of Choice' as a pro-life - anti-abortion issue. It is beneath your esteem to make such a characterization because it betrays a lack of real understanding about the issue. Surely you don't believe that those in favor of "Choice" - believe abortion is "Right" and are "Anti- Life" do you? Could it be that you have bought the hype and missed the real substance of the arguement which is the "Right of Choice?" Or do you believe that we as a nation should limit the choices that adults can make with respect to their lives? Imagine if this caught on - what if all choices that half the country decided were immoral and wrong were outlawed - and what if the standard of morality used was that of the 18th century plantation owner? I'm guessing that some folks would object to the limiting of their "choices." Likewise, its a safe bet that its the misguided, superior minded bigot will almost always favor the outlawing of choices that are their own. Let's not paint people of good conscience that believe in Life and Choice as morally corrupt, but rather, take a look at the whole question and don't be deceived by the rhetoric.

In Love,

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

I really do not want to get involved in this thread but I feel that I must respond.

I have a problem with those people who are supposedly pro-life but do not support programs to help children live healthy. If everyone on the pro-life side truly believed in life no child and his or her parents would not have health care. It is poppy cock to support birth without life support.

Therefore in mind those many who call themselves pro-life argue a specious point. The vast majority should call themselves pro birth because they could care less about life.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2004

Bro Gibson (and others also),

Don't you think it is the parents responsibility to "raise" their children? The children they created? And also we get balled up in definitions: Can you support a law that simply says that Abortion is only legal to save the LIFE of the mother? Now what about the law banning Partial Birth Abortion law that President Clinton vetoed and President Bush signed which the courts are trying to overturn? Partial Birth Abortion means that you start the delivery and kill the baby while still partially in the womb to keep from having to kill the baby after complete delivery because that would be murder or perhaps some doctors can't bring them to kill a crying/smiling/living infant who is looking at them expecting to be protected by them.

If we can't ban partial birth abortion, we certainly can't overturn Roe Vs Wade; BUT GOD CAN.

Be Blessed al paris

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Ron -

Please feel free to interject. I don't mind at all. However, I am not a demagogue as you purport. It would be nice to address my concerns as a whole without segmenting a part which fits a particular view. I am well aware that "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily mean pro- abortion. But, I am also aware that Democratic rallies rarely if ever have speakers who espouse pro-life views. I find that practice intolerable. You can reject it as a caricature but until I see conter-evidence I stand by my point. I have provided comments in related threads on this topic where I cite legal and Constitutional history where the idea of a restriction of choice on American denizens was accepted as feasible public policy. I have stated repreatedly that the jurisprudence used to support Roe v. Wade (right ot privacy) is a legal fiction and I stand by my conviction. I also don't apologize for my conviction that abortion represents a form of infanticide and if unregulated has the potential to be de facto genocide. You are perfectly within your rights to think as you desire just as I am. Now, concerning the other issue I raised let me restate. Are you or anyone on this MB aware of any official document developed by the Commission of Social Action that demonstrates the AMEC's position on abortion? QED

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Can we disagree without becoming disagreeable? Namecalling even if we use lagre words is still so juvenile. Example: I had dialogued with what I thought was a Christian Brother. It started about our mutual attempts to get the AME Church on the Internet. As a matter of fact, he, the late Rev. Fisher and I seemed to be the only AME's publishing on the Web. That was a long time ago; AME Today was a gleam in Rev. Fisher's eyes then. The Brother found out I was a preacher which cooled him some but we got through that. Then he heard I was a Republician and he would no longer communicate at all. To some, a black man/woman who is not a democrat is a demon.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Rev. Paris,

I regard anyone who subscribes to the present Republican party philosophy as espoused by the legions of W as either a blind fool or a greedy evil man. But that's just my opinion and I don't expect anyone else to subscribe to it. I think you're right, that most people regard a black Republican as an enigma wrapped in a riddle, sealed with a joke. It could be because the Republican are unabashedly the party of the oligarch - the owners, and although there are some wealthy black folks - they are not (big O) owners and are not regarded as a constituent of the Owner's party. I submit that black Republicans either are convinced that they are owners (I call it the "Are we'z sick massta" syndron), or simply enjoy the attention and challenge that an odd-ball attracts. In either case, laughter is the appropriate response.

Now I know that these words will not readily resonate with those who regard themselves as enlightened trailblazers, showing the way to a more pluristic view of politics in American for black folks. That not withstanding, I submit, that unless and until the Republicans cease and dissist from its war-mongering, rich get richer, choice denying, bigoted, arrogant, racist, right-wing conservative agenda, it will always be a minority party - relying on actors, thieves, the obsenely rich and a passive majority to secure political power.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2004


It appears that you are being victimized along with a lot of others by the democrat party. Notice how you resort to name calling rather than presenting an argument based on facts. The Dems lie to black folk and depend on their ignorance to keep them from finding out the lies. For example, Senator Clinton is an eductated person and she knows full well that the electoral College elects the President, not the popular vote. Yet to black audiences she will claim that President Bush is not legally elected. She does not say that to white audiences. Is that racist or what. Some of the claims that white dems make to black audiences to incite them and then talk about the "anger" in the black community, but never say anything about anger in the white community. I don't mind the name-calling for it indicates that I am rught and you know it.

Be Blessed al paris

-- Anonymous, October 24, 2004

I must confess that I am undone by those persons who can attribute any degree of success to the W administration or to Republicans in particular with respect to black folks. Those so inclined are prepared to tell black folks that they are wrong in their perceptions; that the Republicans have been misunderstood and that the Democrates are the true enemy of African Americans. If only African Americans would wake up, not follow their instincts, dismiss past offenses, and stop being duped - they would see the wisdom of abandoning the party of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, and instead choose the party of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and W. Forget those who champion civil rights and affirmative action, rather, embrace those who have consistently and in some cases vehemently fought against them. Let's trade an increase in the minimum wage for enterprise zones in the inner cities; let's surrender ideas that enable all boats to rise for one that espouses every man for himself.

I consider any educated black man or woman that would try to convince other blacks to re-elect president Bush as traitors to the race - who are more concerned with lining their own pockets than with the well-being of this people in particular and with the health of the world in general. The Bush administration and the Republican ideologues that surround him have been a disaster for this nation and the world and must go.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2004

Ron, Your faith in political parties is wasted. Neither the Demoncrats nor the Republicians will do anything that does not help them. When you do not have the numbers to control either party, you need to make BOTH parties earn your vote. Study the life of Adam Clayton Powell. He was a Democrat in name, but he would openly support the party that offered the best deal for his people and himself. He never sold his support cheap. Black folk should align themselves with the party that is in power.

Be Blessed al paris

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2004

A reminder to all about the importance of voting. In 2000 the state which had the smallest margin of victory in the Presidential election was not Florida but New Mexico. Bush's margin of victory was 537 votes. Gore won New Mexico with a margin of 336 votes. Recounts were conducted in both states and the outcome was judged to be final but for partisan reasons the state which dominated the discussion was Florida. Every vote matters and individual votes do count. QED

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2004

Moderation questions? read the FAQ