REPUBLICAN FOR BROWN

[Clem1029]

People, people, people, please SHOVE all of your moral values and personal beliefs to your secondary priorities. Your primary priorities should be about the city of Jacksonville and how it impacts your living here.

Isn't this a moral value and personal belief as well? So I should expect you're going to take your own advice and shove that position?

[wsansewjs]

People, people, people, please SHOVE all of your moral values and personal beliefs to your secondary priorities. Your primary priorities should be about the city of Jacksonville and how it impacts your living here.

Isn't this a moral value and personal belief as well? So I should expect you're going to take your own advice and shove that position?

Please read my whole obvious post. I just proved that I pushed my moral values to the second priorities by suggesting that you would look into the mayor candidates at their view on the issues FOR the city, not their moral values while base your vote on your own moral values.

-Josh

[Clem1029]

People, people, people, please SHOVE all of your moral values and personal beliefs to your secondary priorities. Your primary priorities should be about the city of Jacksonville and how it impacts your living here.

Isn't this a moral value and personal belief as well? So I should expect you're going to take your own advice and shove that position?

Please read my whole obvious post. I just proved that I pushed my moral values to the second priorities by suggesting that you would look into the mayor candidates at their view on the issues FOR the city, not their moral values while base your vote on your own moral values.

A position which, whether you like it or not, is a moral judgement in and of itself. It's a self-contradicting position.

[JeffreyS]

If anyone here still wants to save this place they will do whatever they can to get Brown inside the mayor's office. 

An easy step would be to "like" Alvin Brown on his Facebook page. He only has 656 at this point.

The "likes" bumped up to 834 in one day let's see if we can grow this number.

[wsansewjs]

People, people, people, please SHOVE all of your moral values and personal beliefs to your secondary priorities. Your primary priorities should be about the city of Jacksonville and how it impacts your living here.

Isn't this a moral value and personal belief as well? So I should expect you're going to take your own advice and shove that position?

Please read my whole obvious post. I just proved that I pushed my moral values to the second priorities by suggesting that you would look into the mayor candidates at their view on the issues FOR the city, not their moral values while base your vote on your own moral values.

A position which, whether you like it or not, is a moral judgement in and of itself. It's a self-contradicting position.

Everything has a moral judgement including myself and yourself. I am speaking (not speaking on the behalf) for the sake of Jacksonville. What I am asking is you to minimize your moral judgement of your own beliefs to your secondary order while focusing on the issues for the city as the primary. You can apply your moral judgement on the mayor in any way you like AFTER narrowing your options down BASED on the issues the candidates stand for.

I don't like when any voter of Jacksonville would vote blindly based on their moral values as their primary reasonings, but it is not my place to call it.

-Josh

[futurejax]

Can Brown leverage his base enough and go after the votes Audrey gobbled up in San Marco, Riv/Avdale, Beaches, etc to really make this a race?  Key to me for Brown is drawing Hogan out into a debate and show yourself as the more intelligent, more passionate, better potential leader with a far better vision.  I really think he can do it.  His campaign has to make him Clinton-esque circa '96 vs. guy who doesn't really have an idea of what he wants to do as mayor. 

[Fallen Buckeye]

What concerns me too, with both Brown and Hogan, is that they apparently are both involved in the Christian habits of praying and depending excessively upon faith, which is of course okay for the most part, especially in their private excursions into the spiritual world.  However, when the important problems of government are involved, I prefer individuals who pray and have faith less, and use more reason and critical thinking to the utmost degree to solve the problems.  We certainly do not need religion anywhere near our governmental efforts.  We need intelligent, objective individuals.

Being religious has nothing to do with your ability to reason and think. Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history have also held deep religious convictions including André Marie Ampere, Alessandro Volta, Louis Pasteur, Guglielmo Marconi, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Robert Boyle, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, etc. Did you know that the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître? In fact, I would argue that religion is enhanced by science and reason not opposed to it. I would be willing to bet that most politicians in our country have some religious conviction. While I agree that we need intelligent people as leaders, I do not believe that intelligence has anything to do with whether or not someone believes in God.

Personally, I liked Mr. Brown's reaction to the election results. I think it makes him seem down to earth. I do have some questions about him though. Is he pro-life? What does he have to say about transit?

People, people, people, please SHOVE all of your moral values and personal beliefs to your secondary priorities. Your primary priorities should be about the city of Jacksonville and how it impacts your living here.

I don't care any of mayor candidates's religious beliefs, opinion on social issues, etc. I look past those into their soul and heart with the good issues they want to stand on FOR the city.

-Josh

I hope you are not misreading me. I don't want to shove anything down anyone's throat; I just want to make sure that people who have religious convictions are portrayed accurately and fairly.

Ideally, if a person is a Christian then hopefully they would be motivated to make the best choices for the good of the people. Charity (as in loving our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God) is a cornerstone of a Christian life. And although this virtue is not always perfectly displayed by all Christians (they're only human after all), it seems like charity is a virtue that I would want in someone running for office. So bottom line, let's leave the religion bashing out of the discussion because that clearly has little to no detrimental effect on a candidate's ability to be an effective leader.

As for making decisions based on morality, I think we clearly hold different opinions. It's all about values. In my own estimation, the dignity of a human life and promoting strong families are of the utmost importance even beyond economics and quality of life. Obviously, we disagree on these points, but I would hope that we could have a civil conversation about these differences of opinion. To suggest that we should close-mindedly shove issues like abortion or so on to the back burners of political discourse strikes me as undemocratic. Even at the local level these issues matter as shown by articles such as these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/nyregion/03pregnancy.htmlhttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-10-10/news/0910090314_1_ordinance-mayor-richard-daley-protesters

So I respectfully disagree. These are important and valid issues, and even if your values are different than mine I believe that they deserve fair debate just as the issues that you hold as priorities deserve fair debate.

Although that debate may have to wait as dinner is an important priority at the moment. 

[Expree]

What concerns me too, with both Brown and Hogan, is that they apparently are both involved in the Christian habits of praying and depending excessively upon faith, which is of course okay for the most part, especially in their private excursions into the spiritual world.  However, when the important problems of government are involved, I prefer individuals who pray and have faith less, and use more reason and critical thinking to the utmost degree to solve the problems.  We certainly do not need religion anywhere near our governmental efforts.  We need intelligent, objective individuals.

Being religious has nothing to do with your ability to reason and think. Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers in history have also held deep religious convictions including André Marie Ampere, Alessandro Volta, Louis Pasteur, Guglielmo Marconi, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Robert Boyle, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, etc. Did you know that the big bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître? In fact, I would argue that religion is enhanced by science and reason not opposed to it. I would be willing to bet that most politicians in our country have some religious conviction. While I agree that we need intelligent people as leaders, I do not believe that intelligence has anything to do with whether or not someone believes in God.

Personally, I liked Mr. Brown's reaction to the election results. I think it makes him seem down to earth. I do have some questions about him though. Is he pro-life? What does he have to say about transit?

     I admit that I am a devilish sinful non-believer.  However, I enjoy spiritual experiences, those nebulous wonderings and appreciations of the beauties of nature, including those of mankind, and because of the comfort and pleasure of those feelings, my contemplations seek greater extensions to wherever they may lead me.

     But I do have difficulty separating government and religion as it relates to our mayoral race because it seems that both of our leading candidates are of the faith so to speak.  The degree to which either of them is “in” the faith, or a believer, is unknown, simply because some politicians may wish to convey that they are believers in order to get the religious vote; a scenario that, in our city, seems to be important, as there are many believers in this area.  Let’s hope that at least one of the candidates is not inclined to allow his faith to overcome his reason, as given by Mother Nature, and that this one gets in the mayor’s office.

     Genuine belief in a religion implies an inclination, need, and ability to place a good measure of faith in something that may or may not be true, in something about which nothing factual is known, and to act according to the faith and hope that those beliefs are in fact true.  The use or possession of extreme levels of faith and hope existed within most individuals in Europe during the Dark Ages, a period when most were quite ignorant of many important truths of nature and history.  Admittedly we all, including non-believers, engage in “small” measures of faith and hope during our everyday lives, as it is necessary and beneficial in the real world.

     Excessive levels of faith can offer unwarranted confidence in the future, allowing one to miss opportunities for rational confrontation and solution to the problems before them.  Excessive faith can, if powerful enough over long periods, cause various levels of temporary delusional mental states; which, even though existing in low to moderate degrees, certainly have no place in important political offices, such as the mayor’s office.
Governmental decisions require objective analysis of all problems, with the use of reasonably high levels of objectivity and reason to affect decisions and actions for resolution.  There is no place in critical political office positions for more than the minimal use of faith and hope.  To have in our mayor’s office a leader who has excessive inclinations of faith and hope, especially to a degree exceeding moderation, to a degree that it replaces options for objective thought and reasoning, is a condition we should avoid, as it only insures and perpetuates mediocrity at the top, with the result that we solve only a few of the many problems within our city.

     I certainly do not want to fly with an airline pilot who, because of his religious belief, as encouraged by his church and pastor, feels that he must have a good measure of faith that he can safely and competently fly the airplane; feels that he must garner the faith to navigate properly to the destination; and have the faith that the weather will allow him to land safely at the destination airport.

     I want to fly with a pilot who uses his full power of perception to see exactly what is before him, including the weather; who knows exactly how he is to accomplish a safe flight all the way to the destination, who has the confidence because of his skills, and “not” because of his faith; who uses his high level of skill to get safely from airport “A” to airport “B”.  In any endeavor, as the faith increases, reason and objectivity decreases, and as the reason and objectivity decreases, progress is stagnant, and problems remain unsolved.  Faith involves luck, with the possibility of success, but with the high probability of mediocrity and stagnation.   A lack of faith encourages rational and objective thought, determination, and action, with the assurance of success and progress toward meaningful goals.   

     This is not to say that large doses of faith is always to be avoided, because some individuals who are experiencing very trying conditions, where they have little or no resources, such as Stephen’s L’ill Mama, “must” garner large amounts of faith simply to survive, to have the strength to continue on every day; and in every case, the period of survival as allowed by their faith, will either bring defeat, or will allow them to triumph in the end.  In other words, high levels of faith should not be used or abused, a condition encouraged by some churches and pastors, “unless” there is a real need for it, such as when there are little or no resources as one endures very trying and dangerous conditions.

     Of course, the game of some types of churches is to encourage the believer’s feelings that he or she is enduring  trying and dangerous times, wherein unless one believes and does the right things, and tithes the right amount, one is going to burn in hell, or at least one will not enjoy various rewards here on earth.   I’ll have to admit that if I believed this kind of thing, I would fear going to hell, and would garner the faith by any means available, would tithe even more than ten percent, to insure I could maintain the faith that I would in the end go to heaven. 

     As in many scenarios in life and nature, every attribute or quality has a spectrum along which a quantity may lie from the left to the right, from zero to infinity, from angelic to the very evil; and it seems to be that the use of, or dependence on, faith can also be placed upon the continuum line.  I prefer that our mayor be on the lower side of the spectrum when it comes to the use of or dependence on faith.

[Fallen Buckeye]

It's not a judgement of you or anyone as a person. There's good people of all different beliefs (or non-belief). And I think we actually agree on some of these things. I don't see faith as something that should cause crippling inaction on important issues.

It's like the story of the man who is adrift at sea so he prays for God to deliver him. After a while some people in a boat pass by. They try to get him to come on board, but he tells all of them that everything's ok because God will save him. So he ends up dying at sea, and he gets to heaven and asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" And God says to him, "Well, I sent you a boat. What more do you want?" I personally believe we are one of the instruments by which God works, and you are right that sitting around waiting for something to miraculously happen isn't necessarily the best way to conduct yourself.

So while I am not going to vote for someone solely for what religion they practice, I will try to vote for someone who shares my values and someone I think will do the best job tackling the issues I feel are important.

And I will counter with this: not believing in God takes an equal if not greater leap of faith as believing in God. The difference is where that faith is placed. I place my faith in a loving God who will support me through life's difficulties. A non-believer places his faith in himself. Not believing in God assumes that the finite human mind is capable of understanding the infinite universe. It assumes that a fallible person is capable of overcoming life's challenges more or less on their own. And I don't mean any of that as a put down because I used to be agnostic myself. I just chalk it up to the fact that we are on different places on our life journeys.

[FayeforCure]

And I will counter with this: not believing in God takes an equal if not greater leap of faith as believing in God. The difference is where that faith is placed. I place my faith in a loving God who will support me through life's difficulties. A non-believer places his faith in himself. Not believing in God assumes that the finite human mind is capable of understanding the infinite universe. It assumes that a fallible person is capable of overcoming life's challenges more or less on their own. And I don't mean any of that as a put down because I used to be agnostic myself. I just chalk it up to the fact that we are on different places on our life journeys.

I think you mean to say you were an atheist, because agnostics often actually DO believe in a higher power.

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic


Atheists on the other hand staunchly believe in the "non-existence of a God"

And rather than putting "all faith in themselves," both groups believe in the "randomness" of the universe ( with agnostics believing in the possibility of a God).

It's more like "it is what it is," without the benefit of religion to use as a crutch/comfort to get them through the hard times in life. Nor do they praise themselves when things go well.........instead they thank the universe..........or maybe even "Lady Luck"

Neither the atheist nor the agnostic claims to be able to understand the universe.