What do rural people want?

[Cross-7]

Turn this around, What do urban people want? Why do they vote the way they do?

HD, I think that is a 2012 election results map--it doesn't reflect what happened in Texas on Tuesday anyway.
Way too much pink if the below Houston Chronicle 'maps' are accurate. 2012 on the left, 2016 on the right:

 

[TCRanch]

I want to abolish the notion of "political correctness" - God forbid, someone may be offended if I say Merry Christmas. I want the able bodied to work & not rely on my tax dollars to support themselves. I want common courtesy. I don't want my rights compromised by the government, illegal immigrants (specifically that pose a threat) or liberal activists. I don't want to be told my morals/beliefs are "wrong". I want PETA to understand I'm not abusing my animals when I give them antibiotics. I wanted a simpler way of life - so we quit our jobs & moved to the country.

 

[City Guy]

Thanks, everyone. I'll try to convey your thoughts to my friend. Surprised that no one mentioned the second amendment directly.

 

[john250]

No one is paid for not planting.

 

[Anonymous]

I cant speak for all Rural People. I just want Liberty. Liberty to work as hard as I can and accumulate and keep as much wealth as possible....or Liberty to lay around in squander and starve to death. I want Liberty to help whoever I choose to help.....or walk by whoever I choose in their suffering. I want Liberty to enter into any form of business I am confident enough in to invest my time and money. I want Liberty to sell whatever products or services I produce to whoever is willing to buy at whatever price agreed upon. I want Liberty to buy whatever products I see fit to make my life better without any dictation. Including food, services, medical and insurance. I want Liberty to do whatever I see fit with my property. I want Liberty to protect myself and family from anyone or anything that is out to cause harm. I want a Government of limited laws that protects these,and other Liberties. I want a Judicial system that is fair and impartial so when problems arise they can be resolved quickly, with uniformity and clarity. I want a Government that doesn't monetize it's currency so people will know what their savings will be worth and can plan their future accordingly. I think that is close to how it was originally intended.

 

[JMJ Farms]

The problem with practicing religion in a public setting is deciding on whose religion you practice! In my case, I have no religion to practice

Now, when you can sit down and respect a person of Islam who wants to practice their faith in public, then stick 3 feathers in your azz, crawl up on a dung pile and crow.

I respectfully disagree. It's easy to decide. When in Rome do as the Romans do. If you go to Afghanistan, you practice Islam or either sit in the corner with your trap shut. If you come to America, you practice Christianity, or sit in the corner with your trap shut. I know that my way of thinking is not supported in the days and times in which we live. So humor me. What would have happened if our current circumstances had taken place 200 years ago? It would not have been tolerated. The only reason it's tolerated today is because it was a gradual changing that occurred over many years, a little at a time, and it was kinda overlooked bc it was such a slow encroachment. One side just kept taking a little more and a little more. As Grit stated, like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. And also like it or not, the USA worked a lot better when more people practiced it! Try as you may, nobody will ever convince me that the founding fathers intended for, nor would approve of, Islam being practiced in the USA. And I, like TG, don't even think it's a religion. But that's another topic for another time.

Edited to add: I guess most anything is acceptable in the USA these days because times and beliefs have changed. But it wouldn't have been acceptable 200, or for that matter 50, years ago. I like the old way better.

 

[dieselbeef]

the morals and biliefs of the 50s are long gone....as with most worthy things from then....the technology we have is good..but it is the demise of man

 

[Margonme]

The problem with practicing religion in a public setting is deciding on whose religion you practice! In my case, I have no religion to practice

Now, when you can sit down and respect a person of Islam who wants to practice their faith in public, then stick 3 feathers in your azz, crawl up on a dung pile and crow.

I respectfully disagree. It's easy to decide. When in Rome do as the Romans do. If you go to Afghanistan, you practice Islam or either sit in the corner with your trap shut. If you come to America, you practice Christianity, or sit in the corner with your trap shut. I know that my way of thinking is not supported in the days and times in which we live. So humor me. What would have happened if our current circumstances had taken place 200 years ago? It would not have been tolerated. The only reason it's tolerated today is because it was a gradual changing that occurred over many years, a little at a time, and it was kinda overlooked bc it was such a slow encroachment. One side just kept taking a little more and a little more. As Grit stated, like it or not, this country was founded on Christianity. And also like it or not, the USA worked a lot better when more people practiced it! Try as you may, nobody will ever convince me that the founding fathers intended for, nor would approve of, Islam being practiced in the USA. And I, like TG, don't even think it's a religion. But that's another topic for another time.

Stand in line to disagree. The religious right has made it clear how they feel. At the same time, they profess that we should oblige the Constitution.

The First Amendment, separation of Church and State, and common civility should be all the support I need to protect me from being subjected to the practice of a religion I have no faith in. If I chose to join you in the practice of your religion, then my rights are intact. Or if I attend an event sponsored by a religious denomination, then I should expect to endure their rituals in whatever way they worship.

I do have a problem going to any function sponsored by the government and enduring someone practicing their religion. Including state sponsored school. For example, I would object to being forced to go to an IRS audit and be asked to bow my head and thank the Lord for what I am about to receive.

BTW: It has NOTHING to do with morals. The most pious Christian on here may be a child molester for all we know. On the other hand, as a confessed Atheist, I might be the most moral user on the forum.

 

[angus9259]

BTW: It has NOTHING to do with morals. The most pious Christian on here may be a child molester for all we know. On the other hand, as a confessed Atheist, I might be the most moral user on the forum.

x2

 

[Rafter S]

Op. What do rural people want.

To be left alone and to fend for themselves.

I want the city folk to stay in their dang cities. They should have to have a passport to even venture on to a FM road.
Tourist seasons for National Forest areas should include a bag limit for those of us living near them too. 3 each would probably be fair enough

Unless they're cluttering up the roads riding bicycles or taking pictures in the bluebonnets. Then the limit should go up to at least 5, and 10 would be better.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Ron do you really understand separation of church and state clause.
It wasn't put in so you might not be offended or I couldn't practice anywhere I wanted when I wanted.
It was put in there could no state sponsored religion like the Church of England.

I guess you don't accept US currency either.

 

[M-5]

Separation of church and state , is mentioned in a letter. it's no in the Constitution. I get so tired of ignorance

 

[Margonme]

Ron do you really understand separation of church and state clause.
It wasn't put in so you might not be offended or I couldn't practice anywhere I wanted when I wanted.
It was put in there could no state sponsored religion like the Church of England.

I guess you don't accept US currency either.

Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote....

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

 

[Margonme]

Separation of church and state , is mentioned in a letter. it's no in the Constitution. I get so tired of ignorance

Darryl, provide a citation where I stated it was in the Constitution. I DID NOT. It is part of a three legged stool:

1. The Constitution via the First Amendment
2. The clause attributed to Thomas Jefferson
3. Common civility

Here Darryl. Where in this sentence did I indicate it was in the Constitution?

The First Amendment, separation of Church and State, and common civility should be all the support I need to protect me from being subjected to the practice of a religion I have no faith in.

 

[Margonme]

CB.

The separation clause cited by Thomas Jefferson speaks to the core issues of freedom of religion. True, it provides protection from dominance from the Church of England you mention but it also speaks to freedom of BELIEF, NOT JUST RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.

 

[Margonme]

Let me try to make this clear:

Based on three references that address the issue of religion and freedom:
1. The Constitution, via First Amendment
2. Separation of Church and State as cited by Thomas Jefferson and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
3. Common Civility of one man to another

The above, should be all the support I need to protect me from being subjected to the practice of a religion I have no faith in when conducted in a government enclave including a state sponsored school.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Ron your trying to give a civic lessons to the wrong fellow. I know it has been nearly fifty years since I got a 4.0 .
I am 99.9% positive the document hasn't changed in the last 230 years.
It is not a living changing document it is ment to read as written by the founders

 

[farmerjan]

I tend to fall on the "when in Rome do as the Romans do" in so far as if you don't agree, you can have an opinion, but get over the stupid pettiness. All this politically correctness is some kind of ridiculousness...and you can't voice an opinion for fear of offending someone. But where does it stop, when we are not supposed to offend someone with christian beliefs, but we have to sit and have all these other beliefs crammed down our throats without being able to defend ourselves. And if those beliefs are counter to what we have grown up with, and we find them offensive, as christians we are not supposed to open our mouths? This country was founded on basic christian principles, one of them being that you could practice the faith that you wanted, but no one intended for other faiths to be able to come and force us to TOLERATE THEIR INTOLERANCE.....and that is where it has gotten to. If you want to celebrate Christmas, or Kwanza, or Hanakah ( I APOLOGIZE FOR SPELLING ERRORS), or any other holiday, then do it. But don't get offended if I say Merry Christmas in a country that celebrated Christmas from the start. Say thank you, happy holidays or whatever and take it in the spirit that it was intended as a gesture of good will. I do not want to allow a religion or any faith practices that demean or belittle others, and there is that in the extremists that are coming into this country. Otherwise why bother with blowing things up like on 9-11??? I do believe that we have to draw the line and if it is stopping people who come to this country who will intentionally destroy the fabric of our basic humanity and tolerances, then we have to do it. Other countries do not allow countless others to just come in and try to destroy it from the inside out....Why are we???

 

[Margonme]

Ron your trying to give a civic lessons to the wrong fellow. I know it has been nearly fifty years since I got a 4.0 .
I am 99.9% positive the document hasn't changed in the last 230 years.
It is not a living changing document it is ment to read as written by the founders

I would not presume to lesson you, CB. I trust your recollection. I don't even presume you to be wrong. Furthermore, I agree about the static character of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, there is a sound basis for removing the practice of religion from state supported public institutions. Granted, you can contest that as many before you have and will continue to do. What is more important, is that religion is not practiced in schools as the religious right would like. For that, I am grateful.

 

[D2Cat]

So if you're going to cut and paste what you want "separation of church and state" to be...here's another view.

"On the other hand, there are those who believe the matter is simply that the government should not establish an official state church, or that a church should not be anointing officials in the government. Other than that, people should believe and practice how they see fit. Both sides couch their arguments on constitutional theories, some involving Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter.

To consider this issue, it is important to look at the historical situation of the framers and what they intended. To recap, they were declaring independence from the king of England. There is one important title for the monarch of England that is relevant to this issue—Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Not only was the Church of England the official state religion (and still is), but the king himself was the head of that church. This ensured that his political reach not only extended in the public realm, but from the pulpit. The hierarchy of the church was subservient to the king. This led to abuses in both directions—those by the church and those by the government.

The founders did not declare independence from England because they wanted to set up a secular state. They declared independence because of a long train of abuses and usurpations of government power against its people. They were concerned about matters of tyranny, not theology. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes (and thus enshrined in American tradition the fine art of complaining about taxes), not about Baptists throwing Presbyterians' Bibles into the Atlantic. The Declaration itself made liberal use of religion in general, as did the founders in their public statements. Even in Jefferson's "Wall" letter, he expresses religious sentiment and asks for prayers. It's obviously clear; it isn't religious expression they are worried about.

The choice of phrase is important, "separation of church and state." Jefferson doesn't say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutional separation. Ireland's official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland's. In England, it's the Church of England. These aren't religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has "Christianity" as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there's about 50,000-some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say He was a social activist, still others say He was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn't the ideas that the founders were afraid of, which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were their concerns.

The results of institutional mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn't been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that "religion is all that's wrong with the world" upon the founders. There was a camp among the founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches."