CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 08, 2006 08:00 AM UTC

Welker Won't Run for Re-Election

  • by: Colorado Pols

Republican Rep. Jim Welker, who we have dubbed “Colorado’s Dumbest Legislator” for a number of reasons, today informed a stunned Larimer County assembly crowd that he would NOT run for re-election.

Welker then tried to nominate his own replacement, apparently, which created a firestorm of problems and was not well-received. The last we heard, HD-51 folks are still trying to figure out who to put forth to replace Welker on the ballot, since this move was not expected.


73 thoughts on “Welker Won’t Run for Re-Election

  1. So according to the Loveland paper, they have postposed the assembly until 19 April. Kevan McNaught was Welker’s nomination, but the group apparently did not respond well to this and wanted time to find other candidates. Interesting things going on in Loveland!

  2. Hi folks, what a beautiful weekend we find ourselves with huh?

    First off I’d just like to admit to being wrong… It looks like I misread Jim. I had posted earlier in the week that Jim would stick it out to the bitter end. Such was the thoughts of many of us here in the District. Today’s actions proved us wrong.

    Second, I’d like to take a second to commend Jim Welker. He could have invoked a nuclear option of sorts, but when confronted by dissatisfaction among his constituents he did the right thing.

    Many of us have been critical of Jim in the past, but I for one would like to say that for the last few years, the conservative minded people of Colorado had no better defender of their ideas and ideals than Jim Welker. Often we had issue with the actions he took and words he said, but I do believe that Jim always spoke the truth as he knew it. His action may have raised eyebrows, but whatever Jim did, I think today that he was always honest and acted with out self interest. He wanted to be a conservative champion. Having not stepped on that field yet myself, I will not throw another arrow, only applaud his effort.

    So there you go lefties, one more big fish that got away… Please feel free to ridicule and poke fun, but I shall not speak ill of Jim Welker ever again.

    Oh yeah… Draft Dodger Bob Beauprez is in trouble in Larimer. Sorry about that Bob.

  3. The problem with Jim speaking the truth as he knew it is that his truth is from the 1950s and it didn’t include a role in the world for women, anyone who is poor, gays, or people of color or anybody who wasn’t Christian, and even if you were a Christian, you had to be his type of Christian.  When did this country get to the place where we couldn’t accept differences in religion with respect.  Legend has it that the pilgrims came here to find religious freedom and this country was founded on that.  Perhaps freedom goes only so far, as you stay within Jim Welker’s definition of what a good American should be, look, have sex or believe like.

  4. Waltzeswithdogs: Get your facts straight: The e-mail Mr. Welker sent to constituents contained an essay by a BLACK MAN about BLACK people. So how repeating what he said makes Welker a racist?

  5. Welker found the essay – which by the way I did read -interesting enough to send around.  If I send something around, I do so because I think it has merit and is worth sending. That’s what people do.  By sending it around, Welker gave it credibility. And, by the way, you ain’t never gonna get me in an argument about facts – I will never speak about that which I do not know to be fact.

  6. waltzeswithdunces:

    you didn’t answer the man. the black writer didn’t think it was racist. There’s a difference between a belief in white supremacy and CULTURAL supremacy. I am a proud cultural supremacist; which is to say I believe that some cultures, patriculary, the Western Capitalist Christian culture.

    Which is to say I’d rather be the ONLY white guy in the world, surrounded by Walter Williamses, Clarence Thomses, and Thomas Sowells, than to be a white Frenchman.

  7. Not sure of your point.  Are you trying to say that because a person is black they can’t say anything that is inappropriate or offensive, that perhaps an elected official with any brains should have thought about before sending around?  I am not saying that there are not good things about capitalism or western culture. Though when we go astray I think many think we should not criticize the culture or capitalism which I think is BS. I did not mention capitalism or western culture at all in my thread. Just saying that Welker wants a world where everyone behaves and believes like him, and, in my opinion, he does not have respect for cultural differences within even Western culture.  And, as a Christian, it concerns me when anyone believes their specific interpretation of Christianity is the only valid interpretation and tries to craft public policies that force those beliefs on others.

  8. You assume a lot about Mr. Welker. His forward of emails falls far short of the threshold between poor judgment and racism.

    And sir, please don’t hide behind fallacious logic, inferring that one’s belief in a specific Christian doctrine makes them a racist or a danger. If so, Christ himself would have been both.

    There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Liberalism and Christianity are diametrically opposed. Christianity at its very core eschews compulsion.

  9. I see you and Mr. Welker have a lot in common.  Do you not know that Christ was a radical who challenged the conventional conservative thinking of his day?  And, I guess you and Welker make other assumptions similarly since you presume to call me sir.

  10. Wow! What a thread. Eight posters and three wingnuts. And only one with a real identity (who only offered facts without any entertaining posts).

    The only rational poster, IMO, is waltzeswithdogs. His detractors, OTOH, seem to live in another dimension.

    Norway (or whatever) thinks Blacks can’t be bigots. He needs to hang out with more Blacks. Or any other ethic group.

    And Sam What Am thinks “Western Capitalist Christian culture” is the Ultima Thule. Probably works well for him; the rest of the world can go fish. Honkeys ober alles. But there IS no difference in his [gender presumed] “cultural” bigotry and actual bigotry. Not to mention advocating a financial structure which does nothing to help the poor and underpriviledged which his religion claims as a tenet.

    But he reaches further for sensationalism. He says:
    ” . . . Christ himself would have been both [a racist or a danger].” Duh, He was. He advocated a resurection of the Jewish nation under the Mosaic Law without the burden of the Pharisees. And obviously some of His contemporaries as well as the Romans thought he was a danger.

    But this one tops it all:
    “There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Liberalism and Christianity are diametrically opposed. Christianity at its very core eschews compulsion.”
    Kinda like Rush’s claim that is no such thing as a “moderate republican”. But the liberal=compulsion equality is laughable. If any organization has entrenched “thought police”, is the fundies. To display any evidence of independent thought is quickly attacked by Christian organizations. I know; I’ve been a Southern Baptist who dared question the kneejerk “theology” of a supposed grassroots religion. When the “heretic hunters” came to my church from Nashville, I knew it was time to hit the spiritual road.

  11. Thanks for the support, Charlie.  I actually am interested to here someone say “metaphorically” out-loud, the phrase “there is no such thing as a liberal Christian.”  It reflects a behavior and an attitude I see and hear regularly.  In a way its nice to have someone finally get that belief out there in the open.  I am guessing the “liberal” churches that spawned the abolitionist movements and the civil rights movements didn’t qualify as Christian either.  Funny, just last week on the State Senate floor Rep. Andy McElhaney was lauding one of those liberal ministers for his work in civil rights.  Also interesting that Republicans in the legislature are arguing about making sure young people are allowed to wear flags to school, when back in the 60s and the 70s, when the “hippies” wanted to wear flags on their clothing it was that same segment who wanted them forbidden, and in fact in my high school flags were forbidden for that reason.  Guess its easy to argue for free speach when the speech agrees with your point of view, not so easy when its something you don’t want to hear.  This is something the constitutional framers, IMO, full well understood.  Too bad the right does not.

  12. Iron Mike, that was a fine thing you said. I have a lot of disagreements with Welker and, for that matter, with you.  But I don’t like to kick a man when he’s down, and I was glad to see you stand up for welker, who, in my judgment, did the right thing for the Republican party as well as himself or his family.  One of the things I loved about Harry truman was that he had worked so closely with the Prendergast machine, though he was never corrupt himself.  When he was president, they sent Tom Prendergast to prison and the press asked Truman about it, expecting him to distance himself.  All Truman said was “He was my friend, and I was his.”  Damn straight, Sir.
    Waltzes with dogs, I like your style, Ma’m.  (I am assuming your reference to people making assumnptions when they call you sir means you are of the female persuasion.  If I’m wrong on that, please correct me.)

  13. Welker to Knoedler to Bartels. It was a thin story, ordinarily spiked. But too many want Welker’s scalp for a lot of reasons. Knoedler solicits incriminating emails. Welker is a clown, but Knoedler is pond scum, total passive-aggressive.

  14. The problem with genderless status, Ma’m, is that it places anyone who addresses you in pronoun hell.  Did you like his comment?  Did you look her comment?  It just doesn’t seem right to say I disagree with ITS comment.  I mistakenly assumed Brio to be a femine name and addressed him as milady…which his wife found greatly amusing.
    Since you wrote “And, I guess you and Welker make other assumptions similarly since you presume to call me sir.”
    I’m going to presume to call you Ma’m, at least until and unless the pronoun police collar me and beat me with their rubber truncheons.  You can call me anything you like, as long as you don’t presume I’m a Democrat.  I do have SOME pride…

  15. V–I would think Brio is female or male gay. Either way, the subject is feminine. Glad you’re not a Democrat. Democrats are even worse than Republican Aggressive Pond Scum (RAPS).
    I kill me.

  16. Agreed iron Mike, welker did the right and very gracious thing today.  Regardless of what the Dems will regurgitate over and over again, Jim did something that was very humble today as well as something that will keep the seat in R control for a long time to come.

  17. There has been much talk and nashing of teeth over the hate-mails welker sent around.  Of interest would be the emails he did not circulate.  Did he self-censor emails touting the goodness of people of color, people whose gender did not match his, sexual orientation that did not match his?  Did he trashcan the emails that could have shown he was a true conservative who believed in government for the people?
      Or is he only on lists that send trash and want it promulgated under his name to add the authority of his office.
      I think it is telling that he waited until the assembly to quit.  He could have helped his party more by announcing a week ago to give potential candidates the opportunity to prepare for nomination.

  18. WaltzesWithDogs, you ask “When did this country get to the place where we couldn’t accept differences in religion with respect.”  I can’t answer offhand, since I don’t recall when Jamestown was founded, but its been that way from the get go, as often as not.  The Puritans were particularly ruthless against “heretics,” Thomas Jefferson, a life-long deist, began talking in a more common-religion sort of way once he entered elective politics on a larger scale, and let’s not even talk about the history of Catholics (let alone Jews) in the South.  The tension between liberalism and fundamentalism is as old as (older than) the Republic, and isn’t going away any time soon.  Fortunately, the liberals carried the day in 1789, and so far their legacy has held fast against Welker and all the “conservative minded people” he and others speak for.

    P.s. Sam I Am – political secularism is uniquely Western, with its legal seeds planted in England by an Act the name of which I am forgetting in the 17th century, which abolished established religion. I want to hear you celebrate that aspect of our proud Western heritage, its what separates us from Iran.

  19. Arm, I know plenty of intolerant left-wingers, too.  In fact, I suspect several of them post regularly on this blog, and annoy me greatly.  I was not speaking of the contemporary left/right divide, but of a more classical liberal/conservative divide.  Conservativism:  belief that part of the role of government is to enforce cultural, religous, and/or moral norms.  Liberalism:  belief that individuals cultural, religious, and moral views and practices are their own damn business, as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of others.  In my experience, people who carry on about this being a “Christian nation” (by which they usually mean, “fundamentaltist, evangelical nation”) are not only ignorant of history, but convinced that government should by various means prhoibit citizens from acting un-Christian (although its usually only sexual conduct that gets them worked up, which is strange since Jesus spent so little time discussing that particular topic).

  20. For the grammar Nazis – yes, I know there were various missed apostrophes and other flaws with that post.  Don’t you have more important things to do?  Speaking of which, I’m out of here.

  21. Brio–I have typos too.
    Nothing you do is your own damn business. No action you perform is in a vacuum, in relation to your neighbors or in time. Every belief you possess, every word you speak, every mood you enter, effects the world around you and your future and that of others. Drugs you take, sexual partners you choose will all have an effect. Ask yourself if your stands are courageous and moral or are they self-serving rationalizatons, enabled by secularism? It takes courage to stand up for an unpopular president. It takes strength to go against the momentum of the time. Entropy is easy. The world flows to the oceans. What is hard is to creat and build. Civilization is historically rare. What’s common is the kill or be killed gang environment we are evolving toward.

  22. Brio —

    Well stated … I might say. 

    And I agree that the Federal government has no business in telling people how to participate in “love” making, or a church by telling them “how” much is right or wrong.  I remembered in America “once” that thought “sex” was a private issue, until they “the conservatives” started messing with the objections that “we the people” could not possibly be able to decide on our own, through individualism, with “how much, or what was proper,” after receiving some education about “sex” as a youngster, from the “birds” and the “bees” class.

  23. In a free society, I have the right to speak what I believe.  It is called freedom of speech.  I also think, that freedom of religion is my right in America too — under the Bill of Rights.  But I’m sure that many have some different thoughts — outside of this country.  I think someone has the right to go a place of worship, any that they choose peacefully.  I also think that a consequence to my views should be no different than that of the consequence of the views from yourself.  As long as, you don’t aim to hurt people, (including me) and don’t aim to take away my right of a good life, a happy life, and a life that respects my opinions.  I also think, that a certain level of “education” is a right for everyonoe, and teaching people about other cultures is important. 

    Also, “churches” have a right to speak what they believe, but not force them through intimidation or threats of a reprocussion for not following what they say.  I’m an individual, with my own mind, that does not seek to harm anyone, for any purpose, other than providing the right of independence, just like what Benjamin Franklin believed.  As a matter of fact, Benjamin Franklin beleived so much in the ideas of FREEDOM, the 1st Amendment, that he left the US for Britain for 8 years, leaving his wife.  For me, I don’t plan on leaving, because his “works” guaranteed me the right to follow the writtings of what this great nation was founded. 

    However, you and others may think you can take my right of liberty away, but I think not.

  24. Yet, you don’t speak or think anything on your own. Everything I’m reading above, albeit, better than most I see on this site, is a cliche, an all too familiar drum beat that to someone like me means nothing. Can you define a freedom that doesn’t impact another? What I see as freedom is more than not an ambivalence toward personal impact. That’s not freedom as Franklin or Jefferson or Madison intended it. Indeed, The word, freedom, possesses psychologicical implications. For some it’s about specific external activities such as smoking or sexual behavior. If  these are the concerns of freedom, I’m unimpressed. These concerns are controlled by a series of catch phrases or a cult-like control. What I see little of is internal freedom. It’s fairly obvious most Americans are the slaves of a few metaphors. For example, never in my life have I seen so much emphasis on racism. Yet, when I was kid there was true racism, separate schools and facilities in the South. That’s gone. I can’t define today’s racism. And the old definition is impossible in this day.
    Have you considered that most Americans have a forced taking of at least 30% from their paychecks every month. That’s slavery. So is your idea of freedom that you can have sex with who or what, smoke whatever, but for 40 hours a week you’re a slave? Some people think it means they can buy what they want. My point, freedom doesn’t really exist. You’re in a slot, moving in a direction. You’re just like everyone else. If you wanted to live in a teepee on the grounds of the capitol, you wouldn’t be given that freedom. The relevent question in my mind isn’t whether you’re going to live in a tent, but where are we going? The end of this journey, because we’re all entitled to do what we want, is more chaos than we already have. Experiments in freedom never work out. Where are the communes of the 1960s today?  What happened to integration? If you’re young, you know that word only from your high school history books. I’m struck with how much we resemble Rome.
    I’m not trying to contradict you. And I’m not going to call you a debate-ending name as I’ve seen all over this site.

  25. Arm, I would describe the United States of America as an expirement in freedom that has worked pretty well.  You are right that absolute freedom is not possible, in a world that has more than one person occupying it, but there’s something to be said for restricting it as little as necessary in a crowded world.

  26. Brio—I would like to agree with you, given your patriotism and enthusiasm for your country. But freedom in America has meant in the past what it doesn’t mean today. Freedom is grossly trivialized. In our history, freedom was about religious freedom and economic freedom.
    Both have disappeared. Everything now exists in a thinking controlled atmosphere, controlled by science,law and political correctness. Want to see freedom? Italy, Russia, Australia, possess greater freedom than America. I saw more freedom in Sicily and much, much less crime.

  27. Alright, lets define the elements of freedom a bit more clear.  I’m advocating a lifestyle that suggests that we can do anything we wish without a consequence to someone else.  Indeed, from a philosophical standpoint, that is not possible.  However, when Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others drafted was a belief in Independence from the rule of Great Britian.  Their intentions were not to cause damage to themselves or others, what they imagined (I believe) was the view that they have a right to speak in an agreed forum, that seeks to solve problems with answers.  I have never pretended to suggest that my ideas are 100% right, nor have I judged others as 100% wrong.  I have, however, believed in the fundamentals of “debate” that arrives at some level of conscience, that agrees to propel us and our wisdom into the light of selflessness and a degree of consideration of what every person should and does have a right to explore in this country — truth.  I don’t see where a process of hiding the truth actually benefits society in the end.  I think that Madison, Jefferson and Franklin realized that without a level of conscience, without a level of “truth” and an interest in the common good of all, we lose in our desire to be followers under what the design of the world should be — agreed by everyone, not by one single person or a nation.  With the design of the 1st Amendment, we established the fact that the people were more important to the whole, than we the individual parts.  That means, that the President is accountable for his actions, that he cannot assume the position of being a King of England.  In fact, we keep a balance in government with the understanding that ALL THE PEOPLE do matter, and that we all elect representatives in our light, to follow what is thought to be in our best interest.  Thus far, I don’t see that a removal of our right of free speech (unless considered as an aim to be harmful, like something threatening, like someone yelling “fire” in a theater) or freedom of religion,  Notably, you are correct in assuming that if everyone werre able to sexual relations without a consequence, with anyone, would be not only immoral in the eyes of the majority of the public, but it would cause tremendous problems within our society.  AND, I’m not advocating such a society.  However, the opposite view, whereby the government and some element of a “cult” that advocates complete control over society and its way of life, is also “robotic” and without conscience to the ideas of finding happiness in our miracle of life.  Overall, we cannot aspire to create a more perfect world without a debate over the issues that have direct consequence to our ability to survive.  We cannot assume that we have the only answers.  We can only assume that we must work together, in a freedom of thought, under law, (that should be greatly considered in a community orientated realm and statehood), better to be considered at a closer level than at a Federal level.  Indeed, I thought is was the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect our borders, and not disrespect our individual statehoods, our “experiment” with freedom within those barriers, to judge individual varieties of opinion.  AND, as I have travelled throughout the USA, as a birthright American, I have found a conscience that changes from one state to that of another, as the opinions and realms of thought do change.  I also see the similar elements between nations, languages and people’s around the world.  SO, ultimately, if we should decide to go to war to force our thoughts upon others in a manner that is not respectful overseas, we may as well begin a war between ourselves, between states and jurisdictions, that seem very counter to the viewpoints of following what our forefathers created and imagined, and what the Bible and other teaching strongly suggest as counter to the aims creating a worldwide body of governance that does not self destruct, nor will be judged as immoral under the faith of a Supreme Being. 

    And at first glance, without re-reading, I hope that I have made it understood, that the experiment of freedom does and will continue, but not without consequence when we do not respect the elements of a freedom to find the “answer” without violence. 

    “An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.”  — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948)

  28. I think it is very important to find our own level of humility, not only between governments, but also between leaders, races, cultures, societies, men, women and our environment.  IF we were to spend the billons on coming up with real answers, that do harbor elements of an interest of our self, especially in politics, we might be able to solve problems.  I find the political system that works upon the idea that “money” provides the best candidate as greatly a created divide toward an objectionable consequence of avoidance of the real answers, because the leaders are interested in “power” and “control” … rather than the interests of a service to the community, the nation and the world.

  29. Arm Billstrong —

    Mankind must find its own level of understanding, with or without faith, since any forced type of religious idealism goes counter to the ideas that God might have wanted the experiment of our spirit without his touch of hand, because he needed or wanted friends that were not of his own mind, or control and 100% creation.  He gave us freewill, because without it, we are not separate from him, we are not different than HIM.  He cannot have a conversation with something he creates.  He might indeed wish us to have a conversation with each of us someday … asking, “so how do you think you did?”  Then, you get his grade, after bowing down in front of his grace of humility and lvoing forgiveness. 

    But all of us don’t know that end of this life and into the next, until it happens. 

    I try, Arm, I try.

  30. Patriot–I generally get around your typos, as I hope everyone  gets around mine. I would need an example of what you mean by a forced type of religious idealism.

  31. In my thinking, a forced religious doctrine is one whereby you don’t seek it on your own accord, with your own conscience.  And once you decide that it is a faith in which you believe in, then you willfully seek it and continue it.  And in the learning process, of selecting a faith that fits within your opinions, (things do change over time, as do our lives change) we ask for the freedom (for some of us) to explore a new idea about what the world is all about, indeed, “why are we here, what is the miracle of life all about.”  Without such a freedom, we don’t have an opportunity to grow within ourselves.  As an example, if you were to live in Great Britain, and you were John Howland in the days of the Mayflower, and you were not able to make a choice over which church you could practice your faith, indeed, you were forced to continue in a worship that you know longer believed in, you would become angry against those who did not respect your spiritual desire for a different road of understanding.  Thus, not unlike our forefathers, they likely left Great Britain, because they felt trapped against their feellings that God would allow them to discover their missing faith portions.  However, they were not able to do so, and thus they left for Independence in the great idealisms of freedom and America.

  32. Patriot:

    What the hell are you talking about? If you need that many words to say it, it’s either tripe or just plain fallacious.

    What you’re saying, some kind of moral relativist new age crap, is not analagous to the Puritans and Christianity. The reason being, the Puritans – and all Christians who believe the only non-heretical doctrine (please refer to Apostles Creed for starters) – did not believe it is “live and let live.”

    They believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior of a universally fallen man. Without that concept, and without the understanding that civil government’s main purpose is to mitigate the effects of sin, a representative republic such as we have makes no sense.

    The mitigation of the fallen human nature is the BASIS of the separation of powers and all of the other Divinely insipred facets of our Contitution are pointless.

    So please get off it with your snake-oil sales pitch.

  33. Sam,

    Are you saying that anyone who is not Christian does not or can not have a moral code or lead a moral life?  That is a prety  incredable thing to claim.  If that is your position (or not), I think it needs clairification.

  34. Please, someone, anyone! What does that have to do with my post?

    But since you mentioned it, what’s a moral life?

    Beheading infidels? No. It’s at LEAST the rooted in Mosaic Law. Moses preceded Christ and fulfilled the Jewsih Law, so there’s no speaking of morals without the Author of Morality.

    Anyone who leads a so-called “moral life” is leading a life that places high value on things defined as moral by SOME Judeo-Christian standard.

    It has nothing to do with “being” a Christian. Just adhering to God’s moral code is what got a lot of Pharisees a one-way ticket to Hell.

  35. Sam I Am: You’re dangerous, dude. Democracy demands a separation of church and state. I think even Dubya would agree to that notion. But you… Oh, my goodness. “What hath God wrought!”

  36. The “separation” doctrine is wholly contrived. Democracy is not what we have in this country, thank God. We have a representative republic.

    I indeed AM dangerous, my good fiend. But I’m right.

    You haven’t attempted to assail my facts or logic.

  37. oh sam you are really scary. “The mitigation of the fallen human nature is the BASIS of the separation of powers and all of the other Divinely insipred facets of our Contitution are pointless.”  This sounds very much like Muslim Theocracies.  Folks who believe government and religion should be blended (because government must mitigate the fallen human nature) can not help but advocate that we do away with religious freedom for minorites.  If government is instituted of one religion, then what about others who do not share that faith.  And what, Sam, would it be like for Christians in this country, if they were in the minority and the Government were solidly blended with some other faith.  Separation of religion and government is what protects religious freedom for all, so that no one whose faith is in the minority, shall have faith imposed upon them by the majority.  Christians should understant it is in their best interests to support religious freedom, not Theocracy.  Theocracies lead to war and the tragedies we have seen Christian’s perpetuate throughout history such as the Inquisition and the Crusades.  Surely you understand separation of church and state in some context other than your own religion.  And again, being a Christian I can still believe in live and let live, because I can believe God calls each one of us to a faith journey in God’s own way and time, and I can bear witness to faith without imposing on someone.  Imposing beliefs on someone doesn’t work, and only creates resentment of faith.  But sharing grace without preaching is powerful!!!

  38. Sam,

    It was the line “…some kind of moral relativist new age crap” in addition to the general tone of the post.  I was just trying to make sure I was reading it correctly.  It seems that I was because It seems that you are saying that  the millions of buddhists and a billion or so hindu’s are all imoral because their roots ae not in SOME Judeo-Christian standard.  If this is not your point then please clairify. 

    I think that it is important to these posts in general because it gets at the question of tolerance in our democracy.

    Lastly, I have learned through a Rabbi to interpret the Commandment “Thou shalt have no other God before me” to mean that…God is so great a mysyety that even the idea of God that I we hold in our mind is an idol that we chould be very sceptical of because we as mortals can never concieve of the true magnitude of his glory.  Do you agree, or no.

  39. Sam I Am,

    Drivel you post. I wish Voyageur were around to rebuke you and your contemptuous bloviations. He, unlike me, would take the time to point out the myriad fallacies in your black-helicopters-are-coming, jesus-is-alright-with-my-hate, holier-than-God-Almighty b.s. Me, I think your obvious inability to connect with reality speaks for itself. Get a life.

  40. Sam I AM —

    You said, “They believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior of a universally fallen man. Without that concept, and without the understanding that civil government’s main purpose is to mitigate the effects of sin, a representative republic such as we have makes no sense.”

    “Why, because you and King George said it is so?”  And I don’t have a right of freedom of religion and speech in America?  I think you’re off base here, but then again, my single vote does not matter, it is the vote of the majority that runs the country.  You or I have no weight larger than our selves, a singluar desire to offer ideas and/or solutions without being intimidated by any special interest group or other entity. 

    Just because your idea of what a palce of “worship” looks like, or is representative of your thinking, does not make it so.  Yes, the majority of the nation believes in the “Christian” or puritan history’s and beginnings, but that does not mean that I cannot make my own determinations — at least that is what the US Constitution says. 

    If you respect my right of independent thinking and debate, then you also respect the decisiion that I make over what my faith IS.  Personally, I will defend the right of someone who believes that a cow jumped over the moon, if that is what they think.  But the conclusion that we should go to war or tell someone that they cannot have the right to such an opinion, only acts to create “hardship” and “violence.”  Our main objective is to create peace and respect, but not to remove “debate” and “discussion” between people and countries.  That debate sounds pretty interesting to me!!!

    Note: by the way, I have not seen anyone suggest that a cow flew over the moon as a new type of religion.  *wink*

  41. I must admit, that I had not.  I did a search.  Usually, spaghetti and meatballs make me hungry–I may never look or think about my meatballs the same way again!

  42. Boy, are you guys sensitive. I say again, when did I post anything such as what you suggest about hate and people “not having a right” to this or that?

    And please don’t associate me with George Bush. Be a big boy and stay relevant to this thread. Besides, relying on your silly terms like “King George” diminish you int he eyes of readers.

    It breaks my heart to hear anyone hold a fatalistic view that “You or I have no weight larger than our selves, a singluar desire to offer ideas and/or solutions without being intimidated by any special interest group or other entity.”

    I have weight MUCh larger than that. You do too, but with me believing my views are correct and better for the nation, I am also just fine if you retain your powerless worldview while I do all of the very effective things I can to mobilize those whom agree with my worldview.

    And yes, I certainly believe that if He so desires to work in that way, God may bless my work in the public square, the church, etc., to effect political change for the right policies.

    It is the “moderates” and the “tolerant” who most often come up with limitations on free speech, on religious practice, displaying of the Ten Commandments (it’s freedom OF religion, not FROM).

    And now with the Alito court, Stalinesque wacko secularists who are trying their “religious cleansing” campaigns have another thing coming.

    Free, yes. Flawed, of course, like all of humanity. No nation allows such freedom of lifestyle, of choices, of opportinuty. Be a tutu-wearing, cowboy hat-topped, singer of show tunes and motorcycle racer for all I care.

    But ours is one nation under the God of Abraham. Like it or not.

  43. Well, at least we’ve found a good counterpart to some of the more colorful Lefties on the site…

    Sam, you’re way out there.  Have you considered the actual history of the country during your formative years?  You might want to look up the term ‘Deist”.  You could also try perusing the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, which formed the basis of opinion for the religion part of the 1st Amendment.  You might also look up the 1796-7 Barbary Treaty (also referred to as Treaty of Tripoli), wherein  the founders of this country pen and sign their names to the following statement: ‘As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…’.

    Have a day.

  44. […] Republican Rep. Jim “Colorado’s Dumbest Legislator” Welker surprised assemby-goers in Larimer County on Saturday by announcing that he would not run for re-election, but the move did not shock many GOP Party leaders, some of whom has been asking him to step aside for some time. As the Rocky Mountain News reports, the pressure on Welker had been mounting: Rep. Jim Welker’s announcement this weekend that he won’t seek re-election came as no surprise to many of his fellow Republican lawmakers. For weeks, they have been pulling the Loveland lawmaker aside to quietly discuss his controversial gaffes and how they would play into a campaign should he decide to run again. […]

  45. I never said is was founded ON the Christian religion.

    NAd don’t try that Deist stuff on me, wither. Jefferson’s letter – the very basis of the hogwash “separation” doctrine, was actually explaining why he declined to intervene AGAINST connecticut, which HAD in fact established a State Church for the state. So he was saying, “no, the federal gov’t has no business telling Connecticut it can’t establish an official church.”

    The meaning of that letter was actually twisted 180 degrees by liberal, activist justices from the SCOTUS bench.

    Come on, let’s not deny the defernce to God and the fact that our entire system, including the “best available practice” of capitalism, was fermented in a culture of Western thought and Mosaic/Common Law. Judeo-Christian culture is therefore inextricably intertwined with the American experiment.

    When you take the Western worldview and thought and try to implement a system that is sterilized of belief inthe Christian god and moral teaching based upon it, you get USSR.

    I would prefer to engage in our little tete a tete all day, but this is not a debate you win or lose, so I’ve sowed all  I am going to for now. Ciao.

  46. (sorry) My love for Ronald Reagan cannot escape me.  When will the Republican Party regain its senses and return with a moderate “carry a hammer, but speak softly …”  Ops, I just saw a retraction this morning from President Bush about dropping nukes. 

    After a week of NO COMMENT about MR. Bush the leaker, we must roll the dice to “spin” ourselves from the problems at hand.  I still say, why doesn’t the leadership of the world sit down and chat on the Islands of Seychelles, “chill a bit …”  Oh, I suppose it is because it is an election year!

  47. Ford Mustang “Man Racer”…

    A very popular concept Ford Mustang from a few years back was the Ford Mustang FR500C. The FR500 was a concept circuit race car in 1999 with a healthy 420 bhp and an equally healthy pricetag of $125K. The FR500 Mustang was dubbed the “Boy Racer&…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

51 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!