President owed an apology

  • Follow Letters

Conservatives belittled President Obama’s evolving belief on gay marriage. Yet, the conservatives failed to mention their current political beliefs are an evolution of atheistic beliefs.

In 1899, Robert Green Ingersoll wrote, “Ignorance, poverty, and vice are populating the world. The gutter is a nursery. People unable even to support themselves fill the tenements, the huts and hovels with children. They depend on the Lord, luck and on charity. They are not intelligent enough to think about consequences or to feel responsibility. At the same time they do not want children, because a child is a curse, a curse to them and to itself. The babe is not welcome, because it is a burden. These unwelcome children fill the jails and prisons, the asylums and hospitals, and they crowd the scaffolds. A few are rescued by chance or charity, but the great majority are failures. They become vicious, ferocious. They live by fraud and violence, and bequeath their vices to their children. The real question is, can we prevent the ignorant and the poor from filling the world with their children?”

Ingersoll was a devout atheist.

Today, Ingersoll would be called a Rush Limbaugh conservative because they have the same mind-set. They both despise the unsuccessful and the poor. The Bible says, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need, but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”

That explains why an atheist living in 1899 sounds like a conservative in 2012. The conservatives owe President Obama an apology.

Kevin Palmer

Martinez

Comments (49) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 05/28/12 - 11:48 am
0
0
DEMS CAMPAIGN SLOGAN FOR NOVEMBER 2012
Unpublished

As much as I dislike Bill Maher on Real Time with Bill Maher, I must say I liked his quote on a recent episode. He claimed to be "p-word" with Obama, and said that Democrats new campaign slogan for November 2012 should be,"Vote for us. We're lame, but we're better than the Republicans." With Obama's incompetent "administration" for nearly the past 4 years, this probably is the best Dems can come up with, other than playing the race card. Are you reading this, Lowell? Yeah, I'm laughing.

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 05/28/12 - 12:42 pm
5
1
The truth

Some people cannot handle the truth, KSL. It offends them.

Bizkit
30876
Points
Bizkit 05/28/12 - 12:50 pm
4
1
What????? Bizarre illogical

What????? Bizarre illogical drivel. Nothin' really to comment on except maybe just set fire to the strawman.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/28/12 - 01:05 pm
4
1
Gotta be careful

I was staying in the downtown area of a big city for a meeting, and a homeless person asked me for money because he was hungry. I told him that we'd step into the lunch counter across the street together, and I'd buy him a good meal. We went in and sat down. After looking at the menu, he decided he wasn't too hungry after all. He got up and left.

I learned something from that encounter at the counter.

Now, I know this is just one example, but it does show that not all homeless folks are as hungry and as "unfortunate" as they claim to be. I'll be more than happy to meet someone needs -- particularly if they are hungry. But, I will not be lied to and used simply to further an alcohol or drug habit. Let's help get these folks out of their addiction, rather than simply pumping money into a system that enables their habit.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/28/12 - 01:18 pm
9
1
Bible Story

This may mean something to some on here (those that care to read the Bible).

In John 5 we read the account of Jesus healing a man who had been paralyzed for 38 years. We know Jesus did stuff like that. He had great compassion on the needy, right? But, if you read the passage you'll see something folks often miss. Before the healing, Jesus asked the man, "Do you WANT to get well?"

Huh? Isn't that a crazy question? Why would Jesus make this a conditional healing, instead of just going ahead and doing this charitable work? Is Jesus intolerant or just hateful here?

Here's the thing: If this man was healed, then he'd have the responsibility of working for a living. As a crippled beggar, others supported his lifestyle. He didn't work, but relied upon the compassion of others to meet his needs. BUT, if Jesus gave him 2 working legs, well, now he'd have to get a job and care for himself.

This was not a trivial issue. It's important to realize that it is the direct responsibility of any able-bodied person to support themselves and not rely upon others. Jesus honored that concept. Looks like there would have been no healing until it was clear this guy was willing to work and support himself.

Helping people in need is vital and must be done. But, helping people to avoid meeting their own needs is wrong and just enables them to avoid personal responsibility. That is a far greater injustice to them. Sometimes loving others means a tough love that stops enabling them, and helps them get back on their own feet. You are not entitled to a good living. You are entitled the opportunity to work for a good living.

Jake
32351
Points
Jake 05/28/12 - 02:33 pm
3
3
I made the list!

Thank you howcanweknow, but if you click "Ignore user" are you still able to see what I post? But it is very thoughtful to be on your list, you being such a good Christian and all.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/28/12 - 03:03 pm
7
2
Wow --Tough Crowd

I noticed that someone gave me a "thumbs down" for trying to help a homeless person. Guess you'll never be able to please everyone....

Little Lamb
45393
Points
Little Lamb 05/28/12 - 03:19 pm
5
1
1:18

Excellent 1:18 p.m. post, HCWK.

AutumnLeaves
7143
Points
AutumnLeaves 05/28/12 - 03:23 pm
4
2
Is there any connection?

Is there any connection at all between the headline over the letter and the content of the letter? I didn't see any. The letter was full falsehoods and I would say it is misleading, but misleading is too kind a word. Also, is Obama owed an apology? Uh...NO!

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/28/12 - 03:40 pm
6
1
Thanks, LL

If people insist upon using Jesus as an example as to why we must help those in need, great. But, let's reveal the entire story -- and not just the easy, loving, feel-good things Jesus taught.

Jesus also demanded personal responsibility and honored an honest day's labor to make a living. For about 30 years Jesus worked as a carpenter to support his family. He did not rely upon the gov't or any handouts / bailouts. He set the example of hard work and the honor of providing for a family.

If we want to follow Jesus' example of love and compassion, should we not also follow his example of self-reliance and hard work for your own living?

peace4784
115
Points
peace4784 05/28/12 - 04:22 pm
0
0
Politicians and churches are the worst beggers.
Unpublished

The only people Jesus criticized on earth was the religious hypocrit. He never criticized the poor the way the religious hypocrits do today on a daily basis. Conservatives whine about government handouts, but Israel receives billions without doing absolutely nothing in return. Just being a Jew is excuse enough. In the book of Acts Paul admonished the lazy Ephesian pastors to work with their hands to earn a living and not covet other people's hard earned money. Paul worked as a tentmaker. Ingersoll said, the poor rely on the Lord, luck, and charity. Just like all of today's pastor, priests, and political candidates.
Also, what about the political candidates. They beg and receive billions for making promises they have no intention on fulfilling. Most conservatives and wealthy liberals depise the poor because their hearts are not right with the Almighty. Plain and simple. Conservatives and wealthy liberals control the churches, lotteries, and charities. They keep most of the money and give away just enough to stay legal. They use the poor as charity bait to lure money from the pockets of those who have compassion.

smokeysbandit
257
Points
smokeysbandit 05/28/12 - 04:58 pm
3
2
UH, excuse me... but wasn't

UH, excuse me... but wasn't it PRESIDENT OBAMA who said that if one of his daughters made a "mistake" he didn't want her to be saddled with the responsibility of a BABY??

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 05/28/12 - 05:30 pm
3
2
Yeah, what if Obama's parents

Yeah, what if Obama's parents decided they'd made a mistake?

When you reduce a human life to the level of a "mistake", you're really treading on a slippery slope.

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 05/28/12 - 05:53 pm
5
2
Today's debate

Today's debate was spirited and for the most part, civil. Also, i do believe that most that commented are in agreement that a change is needed in the White House. There are exceptions, of course. There always will be and that is understandable. In closing I would like to define a liberal as I see it. A liberal is a person who feels guilty for his success and wants to alleviate that guilt by giving your money to those less fortunate than he is.

smokeysbandit
257
Points
smokeysbandit 05/28/12 - 05:58 pm
3
2
Amen, howcanweknow, amen.

Amen, howcanweknow, amen. Can't help but wonder if when Judgement time comes that those who advocate abortion will face those who were aborted because of their actions.

KSL
126919
Points
KSL 05/28/12 - 06:05 pm
5
2
Great definition of a

Great definition of a liberal, Carlton. See Joe Biden!

Jake
32351
Points
Jake 05/28/12 - 09:24 pm
1
0
Liberal

I guess I would have to differ with the definition of a "liberal" given by Carleton. To paint a "liberal" with a broad brush of what was described in that post is pretty ignorant and very misguided.
I am not sure how our household would be described around here in California but in the south it would be described as "liberal". We surely do not feel guilty about what monetary gains we have achieved in life because we have earned them. We contribute money to various educational, musical, environmental and artistic endeavours because we believe that "to much is given, much is expected in return". We are not stingy and to imply that we are spending others people money is not only wrong but arrogant as well.

Jake
32351
Points
Jake 05/28/12 - 10:07 pm
2
0
Words

I would also like to add that the words "conservative" and "liberal" are just made up words that are used to divide Americans who may see good in each others different view but somehow have to be marginalized with the ongoing political talking points.

KSL
126919
Points
KSL 05/28/12 - 10:13 pm
1
1
Perhaps liberal in this day

Perhaps liberal in this day and age should be replaced with progressive. My father was liberal leaning. He was quite generous with his time and money.

We also contribute. But I get quite angry with people who enable others to take advantage of the systems set in place for the truly needy.

Just how do you feel about the couple I encountered? She stayed home and had babies they could not afford based on his income. Of course they were able to buy a highly government subsidized home and they get food help based on income and number household members and who knows what else. This couple has chosen to keep having children because the taxpayers are forced to provide for them. My spouse and I, on the other hand, had fewer children than we wanted because we were reared to be financially responsible for ourselves.

How would you like to be told by a poster (progressive) that "you are sickenly self sufficient"?

Get a clue how libs, uh, progressives view even the middle class?

KSL
126919
Points
KSL 05/28/12 - 10:18 pm
0
0
Jake, thumbs up for your last

Jake, thumbs up for your last post. You know I love ya!

allhans
23546
Points
allhans 05/28/12 - 10:46 pm
1
0
Kevin says "Ingersoll was a

Kevin says "Ingersoll was a devout atheist."
I think the truth is that he was an agnostic - NOT an atheist.

Not that it matters, just putting it on record.

mikesaul
1020
Points
mikesaul 05/29/12 - 08:36 am
3
0
The simple fact...

The simple fact of the matter is that as the government, federal or state/local, adds more and more MANDATED CONTRIBUTIONS for the CARE and SUPPORT of the "less fortunate", they are taking away from those same people they are claiming to support. Charity is a personal thing. Long before the welfare state and social security state, charitable giving was rampant, and the wealthiest were the greatest givers. They gave in terms of food, clothing, shelters, and even money. As the government takes more and more away from those who produce in order to support those that do not, or will not, the "fortunate" continue to reduce what they give. After all, if the government has already taken money I have earned in order to give to those who have not earned it, why should I then take more of my earnings and add to that pile, as well?

We need to return charity back to the state of compassion rather than the state of mandates! A demanded gift benefits only the recipient, while an offered gift benefits those who give, almost as much!

DMPerryJr
1698
Points
DMPerryJr 05/31/12 - 09:19 am
1
0
Cons Quoting Rand

Ayn Rand is their other favorite atheist. Funny thing is....I don't know many cons who know much about her writing. They just spew what they hear between the commercials for statins and ED drugs on Fox News. I love to have a few beers with a neocon and just start mocking them and watching them get on their soapboxes. It is entertaining.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs