Democratic "Faith Debate" -- 2008

Web Counter

I received a letter yesterday explaining that Clinton and Obama will debate "compassion" but not science. That is, "Faith," not "Science." Come on! Which Faith is Best?

After declining to debate science (Science Debate 2008) in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (with the DNC's approval), yesterday agreed to attend "The Compassion Forum," a forum of "wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to "moral" issues."

This sounds like Bushes "Compassionate Conservative charade" doesn't it. You know, the faith-based help in the American Church-State where the U S Constitution explains we are free of having the government involved in faith. Now will we see who believes in what spiritual values. Or maybe their "faith" in the Constitution.

All three of the top seeded people pronounced by the media as Presidential Contenders are also sitting in the Senate. They have all sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States -- and all have violated that oath -- right to point of treason -- since in the Senate they have denied even the existence of Article V or the will of the people through their States to hold an Amendatory Convention.

How does Your "Science" (the Latin word for knowledge) compare to your "Faith" (the process of believing in something even when you know it is not true) and who of these Democrats has the "strongest Faith." Nearly daily we see how strong the faith of many in the Middle East is where these faithful martyr themselves as some declaration of faith, and trust in Allah.

George and Dick ought to demostrate their faith . . . in something other than the faith that people will let them get away with their actions for the last 7+ years.

Faith be a strange thing: In England they even have a little verse, which I'll quote from James Lovelock.

"We see ourselves as sensible and do not agonize over hypotheses of doom. We prefer to assume that global disasters will not happen in our lifetime. We take them no more seriously than our forefathers took the prospect of hell. What we do fear is appearing foolish. An old verse goes, "They thieve and plot and toil and plod and go to church on Sunday. It's true enough that some fear God but they all fear Mrs. Grundy." In science, we have our Drs. Grundy and they are eager to scorn any departure from orthodoxy. Scientists and science advisers are afraid to admit that sometimes they do not know what will happen. They are cautious in their predictions and shy from pronouncements that might threaten business as usual. This tendency leaves us unprepared for extreme natural events and for surprises, like the ozone hole, that might come from significant perturbations in the Earth's processes." --James Lovelock -- ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: A Book For All Seasons published 8 May 1988, in SCIENCE and go here for the reading of the entire essay. [Italics, mine]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5365/832?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=A+book+for+all+seasons&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Could the candidates compare their Faith in "God and Sunday" with their "Faith in the process of Science?"

How many of YOU recognize Mrs. Grundy in the real world. Or are you like the Pompei residents with their pyroclastic flow? Harry Truman still lies faithfully in the deep ash at Spirit Lake, perhaps as deep as a very aware and knowledgeable David A Johnston, scientist in charge of gas-monitoring studies, who helped persuade authorities to limit access at Mount Saint Helens, limiting deaths to 18 instead of the possible thousands it might have been.

Image: USGS

In looking at the top seeded (Or is that "seated") candidates and their denial of risky exposure, it is clear that they do not understand the efficacy of the debate nor it's need. It also becomes clear that in the shadows BEHIND these players are their masters pulling the strings. The Democratic Party right now is in such disarray as to wonder who is going to with the behinds the scenes battle.

Would they place their life on the line for their Faith in the Constitution? Since these wealthy feel-gooders have already violated their Oath to the American People -- what use is a "debate" on Faith or Compassion?

Why would or should a voter believe anything said by them with regard to their morals as compared to their Oaths of Office, for which the mundane law of man could be applied to them and they could be delivered to a federal facility for a twenty year retreat? This would be a faith-based expression and clearly could demonstrate their faith.

This choice to "avoid" the request's of the Nation's citizens for the Science Debate 2008 is a direct result of the DNC's brain"storming." (Since they started paying the out-of-work Howard Dean, they are still searching for a brain to have a storm within, so I admit this is a figurative characterization. Actually the states themselves should protest the behavior of the DNC and file some kind of suit on behalf of the disenfranchised of Michigan and Florida. )

CNN has been the one of the primary players in the "dumbing down" of America with regard to science education, will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of the "presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other "current" issues" at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., April 13 at 8 p.m. You can read more here:

(I would deny their cookies!)

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6548653.html

Just How Moral Can These People Be?

What has morality to do with faith? Just what is "is?"

Perhaps among the "moral issues" discussed should be whether they have a "moral obligation" to more fully engage on science issues, since the future viability of the planet may hang in the balance, for starters.

The RNC has been totally unresponsive to the Science Debate.
Gee. Is serving Big Carbon a larger moral imperative?

How about the future economic health of the United States and the prosperity of its families?

Exactly how are the candidates going to bring good paying American jobs (prayer?) to America and what kind of "jobs" are Hillary and Obama going to bring you on faith? Or are you just going to believe them on "Faith?" Change and Faith, or Faith in Change?

"Science & engineering have driven half our economic growth since WWII, yet by 2010 if trends hold 90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. Then there are the moral questions surrounding the health of our families with stem cell research, genomics, health insurance policy, and medical research. There's biodiversity loss and the health of the oceans and the morality of balancing destruction of species against human needs and expenses, there's population and development and clean energy research, there's food supply and GMO crops and educating children to compete in the new global economy and secur ing competitive jobs. Science issues are moral issues. -- Shawn Otto, Science Debate 2008
====================

These are the issues that scared away the debaters.

Table: Les Porter, Xomba.com

Note: When I built this table, I added one thing to it. Civil Environmental Conspiracy Law is my addition. There are many other things that are possible to add. You are welcome to copy this table. Just go to view page source under view on your tool bar, and copy and paste. Credit: Table, Les Porter, Xomba.com

Be aware, the table above can scare politicians.

=========================
TRUE FAITH, and true compassion: some of God's Laws.

True Faith surely must include Faith in God's Laws, and must include God's Laws and Rules for the "behavior" of the Universe's components.

These are a few of the pronouncement writ into the fabric of the universe for all to read. Of course, I have paraphrased them.

1. Thou, under God's Laws, can only transform Matter and Energy. Only God creates it.
2. Thou can't of matter be and move faster than the speed of Light.
3. Thou can't get "something for nothing" even by voting for "changes" in Heaven.

These are among the strongest and most sweeping of God's Universal Laws, and they extend and cover everything from the planck scale to the cosmological scale.

Transcending even these is the most fundamental and important Law that God still only relates to his most earnest adherents -- some thing scientists actively grasp -- but which the faithful usually can only witness in awe. It is the structure of IS. It is the fundamental description God displays for all. In humble and meek words it is the explanation of what IS is.

Contact your candidate about the debate. Contact the DNC and the RNC. WE gotta problem. Do you know what is is?