'An Evangelical Manifesto' criticizes politics of faith

[Gunny]

(AP) -- Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.

The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html

This couldn't possibly be. Everyone knows Christians are extremists and only in the far right where all 10% of them control the entire GOP.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Yeah, This was wrote for the Presidents of the United States who want to us there religion to sell themselves. Like Bush did and like Obama is doing. The State the word God but they did not promote the teachings.

 

[jillian]

This couldn't possibly be. Everyone knows Christians are extremists and only in the far right where all 10% of them control the entire GOP.

The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."

So they want them to be more compassionate about making the U.S. a theocracy so they make people feel warmer and fuzzier and not as threatened by them.

Other than that, what's changed?

 

[AllieBaba]

I think Reagan did, though.
Sometimes I miss him, and I wish I'd been old enough to really appreciate him when he was president.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Reagan was a Global Elitist. He pathed the Way for Bush Sr to make his one-world government speech.

 

[frazzledgear]

So they want them to be more compassionate about making the U.S. a theocracy so they make people feel warmer and fuzzier and not as threatened by them.

Other than that, what's changed?

A theocracy? ROFLMAO! Oh come on. Apparently you are under the impression that devout, conservative Christians are some kind of weird and new phenomenon in this country. I guess you never realized that they have been here all along, were the majority for nearly its entire existence and what they created and always cherished was the representative democracy we have. What they don't want is to see that bastardized into yet another form of a known historical failure of a system like socialism or communism.

Sorry jillian, it isn't devout, conservative Christians that are the new to this country. It is intolerant liberal atheists who are new. The same ones insisting that devout, conservative Christians want to create a theocracy. That may spin well for you, but not for anyone who studied history. ROFL

 

[Dr Grump]

A theocracy? ROFLMAO! Oh come on. Apparently you are under the impression that devout, conservative Christians are some kind of weird and new phenomenon in this country. I guess you never realized that they have been here all along, were the majority for nearly its entire existence and what they created and always cherished was the representative democracy we have. What they don't want is to see that bastardized into yet another form of a known historical failure of a system like socialism or communism.

Sorry jillian, it isn't devout, conservative Christians that are the new to this country. It is intolerant liberal atheists who are new. The same ones insisting that devout, conservative Christians want to create a theocracy. That may spin well for you, but not for anyone who studied history. ROFL

Liberals by their very nature are tolerant. Conservatives are not. That is why they are Conservatives. Are you now gonna change the meaning of that word, too? All the great changes in societies were were brought about by liberals. Conservatives are there to keep the status quo, not change it.

 

[frazzledgear]

Liberals by their very nature are tolerant. Conservatives are not. That is why they are Conservatives. Are you now gonna change the meaning of that word, too? All the great changes in societies were were brought about by liberals. Conservatives are there to keep the status quo, not change it.

ROFLMAO! Oh sorry, hard to believe you actually mean that. Liberals are the most intolerant people I have EVER met. They only MOUTH words of tolerance but in reality, they are "tolerant" only of those who agree with them politically. Those who politically disagree they consider to be enemies of the country -as if the country only belongs to them.

I have been on message boards where liberals say the Republican Party should be outlawed, conservatives thrown into prison, free speech restricted for political opponents of the liberal agenda, all religious practices banned and outlawed -and best of all, that using lies, distortions, deception and fabrications about issues or political opponents is completely acceptable. Because for liberals, the ends always justify the means -even if the only way to achieve those ends means deceiving people in the process. And since they believe this is acceptable they assume their political opponents also do the same thing. Of the entire political spectrum, liberals believe that people in general are stupid and incompetent. And this is the major underlying difference I have found between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe people in general are too stupid to be trusted with important decisions and an elite should be making them instead.

So don't give me any bs about "tolerant" liberals. Being "tolerant" and being "liberal" are mutually exclusive. In every government system where liberals ended up in total control, political opponents end up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals. If they are lucky.

 

[Dr Grump]

ROFLMAO! Oh sorry, hard to believe you actually mean that. Liberals are the most intolerant people I have EVER met. They only MOUTH words of tolerance but in reality, they are "tolerant" only of those who agree with them politically. Those who politically disagree they consider to be enemies of the country -as if the country only belongs to them.

I have been on message boards where liberals say the Republican Party should be outlawed, conservatives thrown into prison, free speech restricted for political opponents of the liberal agenda, all religious practices banned and outlawed -and best of all, that using lies, distortions, deception and fabrications about issues or political opponents is completely acceptable. Because for liberals, the ends always justify the means -even if the only way to achieve those ends means deceiving people in the process. And since they believe this is acceptable they assume their political opponents also do the same thing. Of the entire political spectrum, liberals believe that people in general are stupid and incompetent. And this is the major underlying difference I have found between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe people in general are too stupid to be trusted with important decisions and an elite should be making them instead.

So don't give me any bs about "tolerant" liberals. Being "tolerant" and being "liberal" are mutually exclusive. In every government system where liberals ended up in total control, political opponents end up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals. If they are lucky.

Thanks for addressing my point...

In every liberal govt? You mean the Clinton years? Or here in NZ with Helen Clark? Or Australia under Keating and Rudd? Or England under Blair? France under Mitterand?

You ever hear of Gitmo? Who started that shit? Are you Yanks more free now under Bush than you were eight years ago?

The problem with Yanks is you don't believe in compromse. Why does Roomy (British), myself (NZer) or Diuretic (Oz) rarely complain about our govts? Are they perfect? No, but we have grown up enough to know that in the main, things are done by compromise. Both the average American conservative and average American liberals (on boards I've been on) would be at the extreme ends of our political spectrums. You guys need to get in the middle more. It skews your outlook on life and reduces your politics to nothing more than petty soundbites...

 

[frazzledgear]

Liberals by their very nature are tolerant. Conservatives are not. That is why they are Conservatives. Are you now gonna change the meaning of that word, too? All the great changes in societies were were brought about by liberals. Conservatives are there to keep the status quo, not change it.

I'm sorry -but the word "conservative" refers to a POLITICAL position in reference to our system of government. Just as "liberal" does. When used politically, they are not words that describe someone's measure of "tolerance".

Conservatives believe that our system of government should not be changed to resemble a form of government it was not intended to be. Certainly not an imitation of known historical failure of systems like socialism or communism. Our system has worked really well for more than 200 years and there is a reason it is the longest lasting continuous form of government although among the youngest of nations. In that respect, with regard to making significant changes in our system and how it functions - they are CONSERVATIVES.

Likewise, the word "liberal" in politics refers to their belief that federal government should have a much more active role and even assume primary responsibility for the personal welfare of its citizens. Conservatives oppose that on several grounds. Conservatives believe that the individual has primary responsibility for his own welfare first, if federal government assumes primary responsibility it requires stripping citizens of the ability to make important decisions for themselves. And it can only be done with a more powerful and more centralized form of federal government. Something our founders deliberately tried NOT to do. The more centralized federal government is, the less power its citizens have and government is just that much further removed from its citizens -and the less satisfied citizens end up being. Conservatives believe that government that serves best is the government closest to those living under it and most responsive to those living directly under it -local and state. Not federal. Therefore they do not believe that for every possible problem and social ill, that more federal government is the answer or best answer. Liberals do -it is their stock answer in fact.

A person can be a political conservative but a social liberal -there are many who are.

 

[Ravi]

ROFLMAO! Oh sorry, hard to believe you actually mean that. Liberals are the most intolerant people I have EVER met. They only MOUTH words of tolerance but in reality, they are "tolerant" only of those who agree with them politically. Those who politically disagree they consider to be enemies of the country -as if the country only belongs to them.

I have been on message boards where liberals say the Republican Party should be outlawed, conservatives thrown into prison, free speech restricted for political opponents of the liberal agenda, all religious practices banned and outlawed -and best of all, that using lies, distortions, deception and fabrications about issues or political opponents is completely acceptable. Because for liberals, the ends always justify the means -even if the only way to achieve those ends means deceiving people in the process. And since they believe this is acceptable they assume their political opponents also do the same thing. Of the entire political spectrum, liberals believe that people in general are stupid and incompetent. And this is the major underlying difference I have found between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe people in general are too stupid to be trusted with important decisions and an elite should be making them instead.

So don't give me any bs about "tolerant" liberals. Being "tolerant" and being "liberal" are mutually exclusive. In every government system where liberals ended up in total control, political opponents end up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals. If they are lucky.

Thanks for the chuckle. I guess in your mind you are being tolerant while posting lies about liberals.

I find it pretty funny that people like you really exist.

 

[jillian]

Sorry jillian, it isn't devout, conservative Christians that are the new to this country. It is intolerant liberal atheists who are new. The same ones insisting that devout, conservative Christians want to create a theocracy. That may spin well for you, but not for anyone who studied history. ROFL

First of all,the use of the words liberal and atheist are wrong. I'm not an atheist. I'm just not a theocrat... or a Christian.

But no, YOU'RE wrong. The country was started by radicals and liberals. Conservatives don't START anything, as you were already told, yet chose to ignore. And the founders ran from people like you because they didn't want the religious right running things either.

And pssssssssst... conservative = maintain the status quo. liberal = societal change/evolution.

I know you're frazzled, but these aren't very difficult concepts.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm sorry -but the word "conservative" refers to a POLITICAL position in reference to our system of government. Just as "liberal" does. When used politically, they are not words that describe someone's measure of "tolerance".

Conservatives believe that our system of government should not be changed to resemble a form of government it was not intended to be. Certainly not an imitation of known historical failure of systems like socialism or communism. Our system has worked really well for more than 200 years and there is a reason it is the longest lasting continuous form of government although among the youngest of nations. In that respect, with regard to making significant changes in our system and how it functions - they are CONSERVATIVES.

Likewise, the word "liberal" in politics refers to their belief that federal government should have a much more active role and even assume primary responsibility for the personal welfare of its citizens. Conservatives oppose that on several grounds. Conservatives believe that the individual has primary responsibility for his own welfare first, if federal government assumes primary responsibility it requires stripping citizens of the ability to make important decisions for themselves. And it can only be done with a more powerful and more centralized form of federal government. Something our founders deliberately tried NOT to do. The more centralized federal government is, the less power its citizens have and government is just that much further removed from its citizens -and the less satisfied citizens end up being. Conservatives believe that government that serves best is the government closest to those living under it and most responsive to those living directly under it -local and state. Not federal. Therefore they do not believe that for every possible problem and social ill, that more federal government is the answer or best answer. Liberals do -it is their stock answer in fact.

A person can be a political conservative but a social liberal -there are many who are.

Unfortunately you are looking through American eyes. I'm looking through a wider world view. You should try it some time. Maybe it'll get you right-wing religious nutjobs and your liberal counterparts a little closer together instead of being so far apart.

 

[frazzledgear]

Thanks for addressing my point...

In every liberal govt? You mean the Clinton years? Or here in NZ with Helen Clark? Or Australia under Keating and Rudd? Or England under Blair? France under Mitterand?

You ever hear of Gitmo? Who started that shit? Are you Yanks more free now under Bush than you were eight years ago?

The problem with Yanks is you don't believe in compromse. Why does Roomy (British), myself (NZer) or Diuretic (Oz) rarely complain about our govts? Are they perfect? No, but we have grown up enough to know that in the main, things are done by compromise. Both the average American conservative and average American liberals (on boards I've been on) would be at the extreme ends of our political spectrums. You guys need to get in the middle more. It skews your outlook on life and reduces your politics to nothing more than petty soundbites...

Well your nationality explains some things -you get your news from some of the most liberally biased news sources around. Ones that have been caught fabricating "news" even. It also explains why "conservative" means something different to you than it does in US politics -although I agree that many who are politically conservative (meaning resisting significant changes to our system of government and its functions) are also socially conservative and tend to be religiously devout as well -but there are many, many people here who are politically conservative but socially liberal.

I specifically said in government systems where liberals take FULL control and power. Want to debate that one? Because I've got a long list that proves my point -starting with the USSR, Cuba, N. Korea, China, Cambodia. Shall I go on? No one has slaughtered more people than liberals for the sole purpose of grabbing and hanging on to total power -especially communist ones. That doesn't happen in this country because no political party is able to take full power and control of government because of the way distrubution of power was created. And it can't happen unless we change our system into one it was not meant to be. Clinton was just a President -conservatives controlled Congress at that time, not him. And he wasn't particularly liberal either.

As for why you don't complain about YOUR government is partly based on your history. And the reason Americans constantly gripe about their own is based on OUR history. Its a prized right and tradition. From the very beginning, Americans have DISTRUSTED government, have been raised to put their faith and reliance on themselves, not government. You can thank King George for that. The founders distrusted government, their biggest fear was creating yet another form of government that would turn against its own citizens. Americans just don't view government as their "buddy" and they inherently distrust those seeking power and our media takes an adversarial position with relation to government instead of being their lapdog. So in this country, griping about our government is a healthy sign. Not sure your lack of complaints about your own is a healthy sign though. Government is just other people -so if you think those people are all-knowing, all-wise just because they got themselves elected, I think you have blinders on.

As for whether I am "more" free. What the heck are you talking about? I am neither more free or less free than I was on September 10, 2001. Or the year before that or ten years before that. Still have freedom of speech, freedom to exercise my religious beliefs, freedom of assembly, right to own guns, right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, right to travel freely both within my country and out, right to vote etc. etc. etc. Not a single one missing. Plus a couple of rights YOU don't have in the UK. Like the right to not be forced to testify against myself.

Maybe you are under the impression Americans have LOST freedoms -but you would be wrong. In spite of the phony hysteria from the left who think it just isn't fair unless we give our enemies every advantage - nothing has changed in the level of freedom for American citizens. So why would you assume it has? The fact that during war government is intercepting phone calls to and from known terrorists in other countries even when they call someone inside this country? They damn well better be. I'm not on any foreign terrorist's speed dial, are you? So the fact my government is trying to protect MY life by listening in to calls to and from known terrorists in other countries - hasn't cost me any rights or freedoms. Nowhere close to the measures other Presidents took during war though -FDR tossed more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans into prison camps for nothing but their heritage. Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors for "demoralizing" editorials and shut down their papers. During WWll both phone calls to and from Germany and their allies, were not only intercepted and listened to -mail coming and going to those countries was intercepted, opened and read.

As for Gitmo -how dare we not release the most dangerous people so they can go back and plot another one, right? The Red Cross is onsite full time and has full access to all detainees. Reporters are given access and allowed to visit, politicians go there all the time to see for themselves. What do you imagine there? Brutal torture and horrendous conditions? Because they are housed in air conditioning buildings while our soldiers have no air conditioning. They receive three meals and a snack a day based on their religious beliefs and our soldiers get slop. The average weight gain for these terrorists has been 8 lbs. their first year because of their malnutrition when captured. They have access to books, games and exercise, send and receive mail -in fact Harry Potter books are the most requested. Not the Koran. They receive outstanding medical and dental care. Given prayer rugs, Korans and directions showing the direction of Mecca for their prayers. And this is according to the Red Cross. The only problem for them -is they aren't free to go back to the fight.

Even though these people do not have protections under the Geneva Conventions, they are given those protections in nearly every way. But I bet you didn't know that one of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions is that captured enemy combatants do NOT have to be released until the end of hostilities. Did hostilities end and I just missed it?

The few remaining at Gitmo are some of the most dangerous people in the world, who have made no bones about the fact that if released they would return to battle and hope to kill Americans both on our soil and around the world. Nearly 200 we already released from Gitmo did return to the fight only to be captured or killed the next time around -so it isn't as if there really is no risk to freeing these people. There is. So you want to take them them off our hands? Your country benefits by the fact we keep them you know.

And while people like you bitch about the fact we have captured combatants that we will not release back to battle or give them a definite release date when hostilities have not ended -please remember, that not a single US or British soldier captured by the enemy -has even survived capture. So how about people like you first demand the enemy live up to our standards before insisting we must achieve a standard that no country in the world has done.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Still have freedom of speech, freedom to exercise my religious beliefs, freedom of assembly, right to own guns, right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, right to travel freely both within my country and out, right to vote etc. etc. etc. Not a single one missing. Plus a couple of rights YOU don't have in the UK. Like the right to not be forced to testify against myself.

Having Laws that say you have these rights is not freedom. The government is allowing you to have them. If they took these laws away will you still be able to these things?
Yes you will, so why dee da dee our selves and make it a good thing that we have these laws?

 

[mattskramer]

I think Reagan did, though.
Sometimes I miss him, and I wish I'd been old enough to really appreciate him when he was president.

Listen to Sean Hannity. He swoons to Ronald Reagan speeches. If I didn’t know better, I would think that Hannity thinks that Reagan walked on water.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well your nationality explains some things -you get your news from some of the most liberally biased news sources around. Ones that have been caught fabricating "news" even..

I have been listening/reading news since I can remember and it comes from all sorts of sources – BBC, The Independent, CNN, Fox, Washington Times and Post, NY Post and Times, Time and Newsweek, plus a host of other sources. Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass were sacked for their fabrications. Just because a journalist in one newspaper does wrong, doesn’t mean you can paint the whole organisation with the same brush. I don’t think all Yanks are mass murderers because of Ed Kempler, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy or Gary Ridgeway. Since I can remember three or four items of news on our national news has been from the US. Hell, I remember as a bright-eyed bushy tailed seven year old listening to Nixon’s resignation being piped live through our school speaker system. Don’t let my nationality give you the excuse to think I am misinformed or adds any weight to your argument.

I specifically said in government systems where liberals take FULL control and power. Want to debate that one? Because I've got a long list that proves my point -starting with the USSR, Cuba, N. Korea, China, Cambodia. Shall I go on? No one has slaughtered more people than liberals for the sole purpose of grabbing and hanging on to total power -especially communist ones. and going to those countries was intercepted, opened and read.

You took me task for misusing a word and you are doing the same. A liberal is not a communist. A communist is a communist. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between a fascist and a conservative. The ideologies are linked, but they are not the same. As stated on two previous occasions, you Yanks need to get out more and realise there are more than two ideologies going around.

That doesn't happen in this country because no political party is able to take full power and control of government because of the way distrubution of power was created. And it can't happen unless we change our system into one it was not meant to be. Clinton was just a President -conservatives controlled Congress at that time, not him. And he wasn't particularly liberal either.

Same with our system of govt. It is very hard for one party to take control, and in fact, since MMP was introduced 12 years ago, there has never been a majority govt. The problem with your system is there are only two ideologies, and even in my life time, they seem to be getting extreme with each passing election.

As for why you don't complain about YOUR government is partly based on your history. And the reason Americans constantly gripe about their own is based on OUR history. Its a prized right and tradition. From the very beginning, Americans have DISTRUSTED government, have been raised to put their faith and reliance on themselves, not government. You can thank King George for that. The founders distrusted government, their biggest fear was creating yet another form of government that would turn against its own citizens. Americans just don't view government as their "buddy" and they inherently distrust those seeking power. So in this country, griping about our government is a healthy sign. Not sure your lack of complaints about your own is a healthy sign though. Government is just other people -so if you think those people are all-knowing, all-wise just because they got themselves elected, I think you have blinders on.

What makes you think any of us TRUST our govts? Hint: We don’t. You completely missed my point about whining; we do it too, but on a much lower scale because we realise there has to be compromise for a govt to work properly and efficiently. In the seven years I’ve been on messageboards I am seeing that there is a severe lack of wanting said compromise in the US. As I said, time to grow up and stop arguing for arguing’s sake.

.As for whether I am "more" free. What the heck are you talking about? I am neither more free or less free than I was on September 10, 2001. Or the year before that or ten years before that. Still have freedom of speech, freedom to exercise my religious beliefs, freedom of assembly, right to own guns, right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, right to travel freely both within my country and out, right to vote etc. etc. etc. Not a single one missing. Plus a couple of rights YOU don't have in the UK. Like the right to not be forced to testify against myself.

Freedom of assembly and speech? Really? Wear a “I hate Bush” shirt to one of his speeches? Ditto a similar Obama shirt to one of his rallies. Take your memory back to going through US customs pre 9-11 and now. I don’t live in the UK, but that aside, the thing I love most about the 5th is that as soon as somebody takes it, it makes them guilty IMO. You don’t think juries take that into consideration when deliberating?? LOL…

Maybe you are under the impression Americans have LOST freedoms -but you would be wrong. In spite of the phony hysteria from the left who think it just isn't fair unless we give our enemies every advantage - nothing has changed in the level of freedom for American citizens. So why would you assume they have? The fact that during war government is intercepting phone calls to and from known terrorists in other countries even when they call someone inside this country? They damn well better be. I'm not on any foreign terrorist's speed dial, are you? So the fact my government is trying to protect MY life by listening in to calls to and from known terrorists in other countries - hasn't cost me any rights or freedoms. Nowhere close to the measures other Presidents took during war though -FDR tossed more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans into prison camps for nothing but their heritage. Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors for "demoralizing" editorials and shut down their papers. During WWll both phone calls to and from Germany and their allies, were not only intercepted and listened to -mail coming and going to those countries was intercepted, opened and read.

Ah, the old Dressing-up-taking-liberties-away-for-you-own-good scenario. What was that about liberals and communists again? I have no problem with them intercepting phone calls from terrorists, but I do remember straight after the patriot act was passed, federal law enforcement did try and arrest somebody unrelated to terror using those powers. Can’t remember the exact case, but I remember some true-blue right-wingers on the messageboard I was posting on were doing the old “I told you so” to the rest of us.

.As for Gitmo -how dare we not release the most dangerous people so they can go back and plot another one, right? The Red Cross is onsite full time and has full access to all detainees. Reporters are given access and allowed to visit, politicians go there all the time to see for themselves. What do you imagine there? Brutal torture and horrendous conditions? Because they are housed in air conditioning buildings while our soldiers have no air conditioning. They receive three meals and a snack a day based on their religious beliefs and our soldiers get slop. The average weight gain for these terrorists has been 8 lbs. their first year because of their malnutrition when captured. They have access to books, games and exercise, send and receive mail -in fact Harry Potter books are the most requested. Not the Koran. They receive outstanding medical and dental care. Given prayer rugs, Korans and directions showing the direction of Mecca for their prayers. And this is according to the Red Cross. The only problem for them -is they aren't free to go back to the fight.

The Red Cross does not have full access to the detainees. It is limited. And are they the most dangerous people? How come some have been released? How come there is no transparency? I’ll tell you why, because the US military don’t know themselves. You do know there are instances when Abdul has told the US forces that his neighbour Mohammed is a terrorist and they’ve just bowled in, taken him away and stuck him in Gitmo for a couple of years without trial, right? Again, it’s not lost on me that you anti-abortion types who hold all human life sacrosanct, are more than happy to throw your fellow human beings to the dogs with little or no evidence, just a perceived threat. How benevolent of you. But they’re only ragheads, right. Muslims to boot – and I’ve already seen your right-wing Christian whackjob opinions on Muslims. Don’t bitch to me about human life, when obviously even you don’t believe what you are spouting in that regard. My God, how nice of the US to feed them and give them dental care. They must really be glad they stay inside 23 hours a day and get to read books and are away from their families. My problem with Gitmo isn’t the guilty ones, it’s the innocent ones and the lack of transparency.

.Even though these people do not have protections under the Geneva Conventions, they are given those protections in nearly every way. But I bet you didn't know that one of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions is that captured enemy combatants do NOT have to be released until the end of hostilities. Did hostilities end and I just missed it?The few remaining at Gitmo are some of the most dangerous people in the world, who have made no bones about the fact that if released they would return to battle and hope to kill Americans both on our soil and around the world. Nearly 200 we already released from Gitmo did return to the fight only to be captured or killed the next time around -so it isn't as if there really is no risk to freeing these people. There is. So you want to take them them off our hands? Your country benefits by the fact we keep them you know.

As I said, I have no problems with you keeping real terrorists. I couldn’t give a shit about enemy combatants and their status. The very reason they were given that status was so the US could side-step natural justice and do what they want.
And I know some have gone back to the fight, but what you don’t say is why. You don’t think Abdul the goat herder who spent five years in Gitmo for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not going to want a little payback when released? My country does not benefit one iota from you keeping them. There has only ever been one act of terrorism carried out on NZ soil and that was by the French secret service back in 1985 who blew up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. The ship was about to embark on protest action at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia where the Frogs carried out nuclear testing.

 

[AllieBaba]

They were hired without credentials, and their stories were never checked. Shoddy journalism practices, which bring into question the veracity of the companies which hire them.

The BBC was prosecuted (more than once) and LOST for bias. That's not just incidental. That's a philosophy and an illegal one at that.

 

[frazzledgear]

.....although I agree that many who are politically conservative (meaning resisting significant changes to our system of government and its functions) are also socially conservative and tend to be religiously devout as well -but there are many, many people here who are politically conservative but socially liberal. QUOTE]

Just in case you doubt me on that -we have an entire political party whose members are politically very conservative and socially very liberal. The Libertarian Party. Libertarians believe in minimal government as it was originally described in the Constitution. It is the same belief system as our founders -based on individualism and property rights. So they believe our government needs to return to the function and purpose as it was described to be in the Constitution when the founders created it.

They believe in the inherent right for individuals to do whatever they want with their own lives and property as long as they respect the rights of everyone else and harm no one else.

So they would legalize street drugs, prostitution and pretty much anything else people want to do with their bodies and personal property -as long as they harm no one but themselves. Libertarians, like the founders -see the real purpose of government as letting people make and live their own lives, providing only those services that prevent individuals from hurting each other or getting collectively hurt by outside enemies - services like police and national defense.

Libertarians don't do well in federal elections -no third party really does. But in many states -including my own - it is quite successful on the local level and less so on the state level. There are at least 6 Libertarians who hold some kind of local government office just in my little city.

This party is a breakaway party from the Republican Party -that happened after some Republicans got very upset with the policies of Richard Nixon, particularly his imposition of price and wage controls. But even though a lot of Republicans share many of the core values of the Libertarian Party -they still vote Republican because a lot of people see it as wasting their vote by voting for a third party candidate on the national level who can't win anyway.

 

[Dr Grump]

.....although I agree that many who are politically conservative (meaning resisting significant changes to our system of government and its functions) are also socially conservative and tend to be religiously devout as well -but there are many, many people here who are politically conservative but socially liberal. QUOTE]

Just in case you doubt me on that -we have an entire political party whose members are politically very conservative and socially very liberal. The Libertarian Party. Libertarians believe in minimal government as it was originally described in the Constitution. It is the same belief system as our founders -based on individualism and property rights. So they believe our government needs to return to the function and purpose as it was described to be in the Constitution when the founders created it.

They believe in the inherent right for individuals to do whatever they want with their own lives and property as long as they respect the rights of everyone else and harm no one else.

So they would legalize street drugs, prostitution and pretty much anything else people want to do with their bodies and personal property -as long as they harm no one but themselves. Libertarians, like the founders -see the real purpose of government as letting people make and live their own lives, providing only those services that prevent individuals from hurting each other or getting collectively hurt by outside enemies - services like police and national defense.

Libertarians don't do well in federal elections -no third party really does. But in many states -including my own - it is quite successful on the local level and less so on the state level. There are at least 6 Libertarians who hold some kind of local government office just in my little city.

This party is a breakaway party from the Republican Party -that happened after some Republicans got very upset with the policies of Richard Nixon, particularly his imposition of price and wage controls. But even though a lot of Republicans share many of the core values of the Libertarian Party -they still vote Republican because a lot of people see it as wasting their vote by voting for a third party candidate on the national level who can't win anyway.

We have what is more or less a Libertarian Party. They hold two seats in our parliament. I agree with some principles, but not all. We have legalised prostitution in NZ.