In a world that is full of misinformation and outright lies, I have tried to create a site that can provide accurate and rational responses to questions about life. We can explore the pressing questions about science, religion, government and society together. Of course, we can have some fun doing this as well.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall" - Thomas Paine
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Occasionally I run across passages like this one where the author of an article is using a quote from the bible to illustrate a point. What amuses me is that they simply gloss over what the implications of a verse like this really means.
If Jesus grew in wisdom as he matured from a child to an adult, then he was learning new information. If he learned something, then he obviously was unaware of the information beforehand. Some of the attributes of god is that he is all knowing, all powerful, and never changes. Jesus is said to be god. Well, part of god, they gloss over the Trinity most of the time too. If Jesus learned something new, then he cannot claim to always be all knowing. How can an all knowing, all powerful deity, be reduced in power? If he was reduced in power and knowledge as a human, then god can change. If he cannot change, then Jesus had to be all knowing from day one as an infant.
It also says that Jesus grew in favor with god. Now, once again, Jesus IS god. How does an aspect of god grow in favor with himself? What does that even mean? How is it even remotely possible that god, who being all knowing, knows exactly what Jesus will do. In fact, Jesus is fulfilling gods will. (Which is really his own will) Since god sent Jesus to earth to do everything that Jesus did, what could Jesus do that would actually increase his favor with god? (Who is himself, of course)
It is the absurdity of verses like this that show that the bible is simply a work of fiction.
The decades-old routine of handing out free Gideon Bibles in public schools has sparked renewed passions amid complaints the practice is discriminatory and no longer has a place in a secular education system.
The latest flare-up occurred in the sprawling Bluewater District School Board in southern Ontario after a parent’s objection led to the discovery the board had no policy on the issue.
Yet, there should not be a controversy. The issue is clear. Bible Distribution in Public Schools Is Illegal
It is unconstitutional for public school districts to allow these groups to distribute bibles in classrooms during the school day. Courts uniformly have held the distribution of bibles to students at public schools during instructional time is prohibited. This means that Gideons cannot be present inside your child's classroom or on public school grounds to distribute bibles. Public school officials—including principals and teachers—cannot hand out bibles or otherwise facilitate the distribution of bibles.
Courts have determined that allowing bible distribution at public schools—especially to elementary students who cannot make the distinction between private religious speech and state-sponsored speech—is unconstitutional not only because it appears to be government endorsement of Christianity, but also because of the social pressures students feel to accept the bibles. Moreover, these practices infringe parents' rights to direct the religious, or non-religious, upbringing of their own children.
In one of the leading federal court decisions on this topic, Berger v. Rensselaer Central Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, held that classroom distribution of Gideon bibles to fifth-graders violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In striking down the school district's policy permitting Gideons to distribute bibles at the schools, the court stated, “. . . the Gideon Bible is unabashedly Christian. In permitting distribution of ‘The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ along with limited excerpts from the Old Testament, the schools affront not only non-religious people but all those whose faiths, or lack of faith, does not encompass the New Testament.” It is significant that the U.S. Supreme Court let stand this decision, just as it let stand Tudor v. Board of Education of Rutherford, 14 J.N. 31 (1953), cert. denied 348 U.S. 816 (1954) four decades earlier. The law is clear.>>>>
APIA, Samoa — The tiny South Pacific nation of Samoa and its neighbor Tokelau will jump forward in time on Thursday, crossing westward over the international date line to align themselves with their other 21st century trading partners throughout the region.
At the stroke of midnight on Dec. 29, time in Samoa and Tokelau will leap forward to Dec. 31 — New Year's Eve. For Samoa's 186,000 citizens, and the 1,500 in Tokelau, Friday, Dec. 30, 2011, will simply cease to exist.
The time jump back to the future comes 119 years after some U.S. traders persuaded local Samoan authorities to align their islands' time with nearby U.S.-controlled American Samoa and the U.S. to assist their trading with California.
It is absurd that we would be drawn so often back to the “War on Christianity” meme that seems to form the heart and core of every Republican campaign in 2012. Even the battles surrounding issues like marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights are framed in terms of “religious freedoms under attack” as though somebody is being told they can’t practice their religion if other people have an equal amount of liberty. And rather than focusing on the absurdity of claiming persecution on the basis of equal rights, the media legitimizes the Republican narrative as something deserving discussion.
Newt Gingrich likes to harp on the subject of “religious freedom” as much as the next Republican. Of course, as we have shown here repeatedly, the phrase “religious freedom” is a stand-in for something else: the privileging of Christian belief over all other forms of belief – or disbelief. Religious freedom should mean equal freedoms for all with regards to belief and that is what the First Amendment establishes by prohibiting government establishment of religion, originally applied to the federal government in the First Amendment and later applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in the wake of the Civil War.
But this isn’t what the GOP wants. The conservative Christian-driven GOP wants the establishment of Christianity as a state-sponsored religion in contravention of the First Amendment and all rhetoric directed at the topic is toward this end and this end alone. Newt Gingrich is no different. CBN claimed Monday evening to have received a document from the Gingrich campaign that shows how seriously their candidate takes this mythical war on Christianity. According to The Brody File, they “obtained an exclusive document that lays out in detail Newt Gingrich’s plan on day one of his administration to create, through Executive Order, a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom in the United States.”
The document has been posted on Newt.org as of Tuesday in all its dubious glory. It would obviously have been crafted (and leaked) to show how serious he is on the subject of “religious freedom.” It would also demonstrate that Gingrich is well aware of how important it is that he makes a serious attempt to draw conservative Christian voters away from Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, who have more God-cred than does he, especially at a time when Newt is struggling with falling poll numbers. The Brody File further claims that “While Gingrich knows this commission will be welcomed by conservative evangelicals (read: key primary voters), this should not be read as an attempt to pander.”
But it is. A more blatant case of pandering cannot be imagined at this point, and we’ve already seen some truly egregious pandering on the part of GOP candidates.
We already have the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), established by George W. Bush and maintained and enhanced (as well as renamed) by President Barack Obama, but putting Christianity in the federal government isn’t enough for Gingrich. The others may talk, he seems to be saying, but I have the cojones to actually scrap that pesky First Amendment once and for all and stop the spread of what he likes to call “pagan culture.”
The 20-page-long document states that the Religious Freedom Commission would have as its purpose to:
“Examine and document threats or impediments to religious freedom in the United States and to propose steps for reaffirming and protecting the foundational principle of freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief upon which our republic is built and thrives.”
Translation: to wage war on secularists, atheists, pagans and everyone else who dares object to what Christians see as their right to completely ignore the First Amendment, or to repurpose it as a document establishing Christianity as America’s state religion.
According to the Brody File, Gingrich says that “Today, the foundations of religious freedom in this country are being eroded as never before.”
Gingrich pretends to adhere to the First Amendment but read what he says about religious pluralism in light of the Christian position that it alone possesses access to some ultimate, capital-T Truth:
A commitment to religious pluralism—or affording every individual’s religious beliefs the equal protection of the law—is not the same as saying all beliefs are equal.
This is a long-standing Christian position. Pope Benedict XVI certainly agrees and his position is that truth trumps tolerance, which seems also to be the point Gingrich is angling at.
Gingrich claims that anti-religious viewpoints are being forced on people when of course, the opposite is the problem. What he is really saying is that those who do not subscribe to Christian interpretations of morality and various social issues do not have the same rights as Christians because not all beliefs are equal. Far from it, Christian belief is more equal than others and atheists have no right to non-belief at all.
When the document talks about “promoting greater religious freedom” what it is talking about is promoting Christianity at the expense of other forms of belief and non-belief. It is saying, like Bachmann and Perry and pseudo-historian David Barton, that Christianity is indeed the basis of the American system of government and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Rather than legislating from the bench, as he claims “activist” judges do, Gingrich proposes to legislate after the fact, redressing perceived imperfections in the First Amendment by stressing Christian pre-eminence (Christianity didn’t even get a nod, let alone a mention, in the U.S. Constitution).
Gingrich is desperate, as this document proves and he has just upped the ante, putting other Republican
candidates in a position to demonstrate their own devotion to the myth of Christian America.
Further proving that the Shroud of Turin—a linen cloth that believers say covered Jesus after the crucifixion—is a big fake, scientists have made a reproduction using inexpensive materials and easy techniques from the Middle Ages. This is how:
Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli and his team used the same type of linen. First they aged the cloth with heat, using a normal oven, and washing it with water. The shroud was placed over a student covered in red ochre, using a mask that simulated Jesus' alleged physiognomy. They kept aging and washing the shroud, adding the necessary blood stains in the process.
This easy to do, inexpensive one-week process resulted in exactly the same look as the Shroud of Turin, which has been repeatedly proven to be a fake made around the 14th Century using different dating techniques.
Would this convince the believers? Garlaschelli says he doubt it:
Many still believe that the shroud has unexplainable characteristics that cannot be reproduced by human means. But the result obtained clearly indicates that this could be done with the use of inexpensive materials and with a quite simple procedure.
If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me.
Indeed Luigi, indeed. These people won't take scientific proof that the relic is fake because they just like to do the Mulder and want to believe. Now, go back to kill Koopa Troopas and Goombas after killing God yet one more time. I'm going to pull a Nietzsche and find myself a linen cloth to try. [BBC and Daily Mail]
Each year, the Supreme Court is asked to hear approximately five thousand cases. However, because of time and resource constraints and because not all cases are of equal merit, the Court selects only a handful to formally review.
When formal appeals are filed before the Supreme Court, legal briefs outlining the reasons behind the appeals are circulated among the Justices who sit on the Court. Justices then compile and circulate a "Discuss List" of cases that might warrant Supreme Court review. Finally, the Justices meet and vote on which cases to hear. The Court uses an informal "Rule of Four" in deciding whether or not to hear a case--only four of the nine Justices need to vote to hear a case. Through this process, the Court chooses 150 to 200 cases to hear each year.
As they narrow the number of cases on the "Discuss List," the Justices use several standards to determine whether or not a case is "justiciable." First and foremost, the Court must decide if it has jurisdiction in a case. If it does not, it will not hear the case. The Court has heard less than 200 original jurisdiction cases in its entire history. The Court will also generally refuse to rule on "political questions," cases that it believes are better addressed through the regular political process by other branches of government. Cases in which no real controversy or dispute exists will also be rejected by the Court--it will not address hypothetical questions. Similarly, the person or persons who bring cases before the Court must have "standing." They must be able to show that they have sustained "injury in fact," i.e. that they have been harmed in some real way. An individual who knows someone who is wrongfully imprisoned does not have standing to sue for his or her release (the imprisoned individual would have standing).
Supreme Court Decision Making
Once the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case, it orders lower courts that have handled the case to surrender all records and supporting documents related to it. As an appeals court, the Supreme Court does not convene new jury trials but rather reviews the decisions of lower court judges and juries.
As the Justices on the Court begin to weigh the merits of the cases that come before them, attorneys on both sides of the case present oral arguments in the Supreme Court chamber. These sessions are open to the public and are the most visible phase of the Court's decision-making process. Oral arguments, however, are rarely the deciding factor in the Court's decisions. Much more important are the legal briefs filed by each side as well as numerous "friend of the court" briefs filed by interested parties who want the Court to consider particular aspects or ramifications of the case.
Of even greater importance, however, are previous decisions of the Court. To maintain its consistency and credibility, the Court regularly refers to previous Supreme Court decisions as it considers new cases. Adhering to a standard of stare decisis, or letting previous decisions stand, the Court is very reluctant to reverse or even stray from the precedents it has established in past cases. The Court will, however, on very rare occasions, reverse previous Supreme Court decisions when it sees no alternative but to reject a "bad" or outdated decision.1
As they sort through these numerous legal briefs and the original trial and appeals court records, the Justices engage in private debate, argument and discussion. Once a fairly clear majority emerges in support of one side or the other in a case, a Justice (or Justices) writes and circulates "draft" opinions, or explanations of the Court's decision. Ultimately, a majority of the Court (five or more Justices) decides the outcome of the case and a final opinion is written and announced to the public.
Types of Opinions
When the Supreme Court announces its decisions, the particular outcome in a particular case is often of only secondary importance. Far more important are the implications of the Court's decision in that case for a host of other similar cases and controversies. The extent of the applicability of the Court's decision in a particular case to other cases is usually spelled out in detail in the Court's opinion.
The most important document that accompanies a Supreme Court decision is the "Majority Opinion" of the Court which outlines the legal precedent and logic behind its decision. In some instances, one or more of the Justices in the minority may feel so strongly opposed to the majority's decision that they will write a "Dissenting Opinion." Justices who agree with the majority's decision but for other reasons might also write an additional opinion, a "Concurring Opinion." The Justice or Justices who write opinions for the Court generally affix their names to them, thereby giving the public and the legal community some insight into the thinking of individual justices. In rare instances when the Court rules unanimously on a case that it believes requires little explanation, it will issue a short "Per Curiam" opinion, or an opinion "for the Court," with no name attached to it.
Do Courts Make Laws?
When the Supreme Court announces its decisions and issues its opinions, it is often accused of "legislating from the bench" or making laws although it is not the legislative branch. Does the Court "make law" when it decides the outcomes of the cases that come before it? The answer depends on the definition of "law" one uses. When the Congress, a state legislature or some other established law-making body passes a law, it creates "statutory law." These are the laws with which people are most familiar, such as laws regulating the speed limit, laws that define criminal behavior and the laws that establish government programs. Statutory laws, however, are not the only kinds of laws that are "made" and applied in the American political and legal systems.
The most fundamental laws of this nation are the guidelines established by the Constitution. The "constitutional law" of the land includes the Constitution's descriptions of the relationships between the three branches of the national government, the relationships between the national and state governments, the powers the Constitution grants to the national government and, most importantly, the limitations it places on governmental action.
The Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches are all established and guided by constitutional law. However, the Constitution is sufficiently vague that each branch has frequently found itself in situations where the "right" course of action under constitutional law was unclear. The Framers of the Constitution, recognizing that they could not anticipate every possible circumstance in the new nation's future, purposely left room for each branch to adapt and interpret their roles under the Constitution to meet the needs and challenges they would face. Most notably, the Congress was given the task of deciding what was "necessary and proper" to "promote the general welfare" and form "a more perfect union." The necessary product of these decisions has been thousands and thousands of statutory laws.
As the Executive Branch has implemented the statutory laws passed by the Congress, it has also had to interpret not only its role under the Constitution but also the intentions of the Congress. In many instances the Congress has passed legislation that was purposely vague, leaving the details to Executive Branch departments and agencies to decide. When bureaucracies determine the details of the enforcement and implementation of a law passed by the Congress, the Executive Branch also "makes law." These kinds of laws are called "administrative law."
As this nation's political system has evolved and matured, there have been numerous controversies about the laws passed by the Congress and the way those laws have been implemented by the President and the Executive Branch. There have also been disputes about the separation of powers between the three branches, the relationship between the national government and the states, the rights of the people and a host of other questions that arise under the Constitution. When such cases arise, they clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As Alexander Hamilton observed, it was necessary for the stability and future of the nation to "establish one court paramount to the rest, possessing a general superintendence, and authorized to settle and declare in the last resort a uniform rule of civil justice" (see The FederalistNo. 22). When the Court makes decisions in response to such cases, it is, for all intents and purposes, defining and interpreting constitutional law. Does it "make" constitutional law in the process? There are differences of opinion on this matter, but the Court has clearly gone beyond the strict "letter of the law" embodied in the Constitution in several instances. Whether its decisions amount to new law or merely interpretations and clarifications of existing ones is, for better or worse, a matter of opinion.
From Hamilton's statements in The Federalist Papers, however, it appears that the Framers at least intended that the Supreme Court would stand between the other two branches of the national government and the people, preventing abuses of power and improper interpretations of the Constitution. Indeed, Hamilton declared it the duty of the Court to "declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."2
Interpretation as law
A prominent attorney who had argued hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court once remarked that the Supreme Court is not final because it's right, it is right because it is final. The Court's position as the court of last appeal and as the highest court in the land means that its decisions are binding and largely unchangeable. Once the Court has ruled, its decisions have all the effect and permanency of law.
The example provided this example. Molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong (or not wrong). It is stating that people would all agree that raping young children is always wrong. I will agree with that statement. However, in the Christian bible, god commands people to molest young girls. Now he does not say have fun with it, that is true, but the people voice no objection. There is no reason to assume they did not enjoy what they were doing. The way the passages read, the people simply rape the young girls. Now, if we are to assume that there is a moral absolute, such as do not rape young children, and it comes from god, shouldn't we expect to see him not command people to rape young women?
What it ignores is that there is a third option. That we cannot determine what an absolute truth is in all cases. There are certain statements, such as raping children that lead no doubt about whether it is a good or bad concept. But just because there are some ideas which are black and white does not mean all concepts are equally understandable. For example theft. In general terms, theft is considered wrong. How about when a starving man needs to feed his family? How about when a starving man needs to take from people who are preventing him from obtaining the means to feed his family? The issues are not so black and white in those cases.
Let us consider killing. Once again, killing is viewed as wrong. However, how about in self protection or war? Killing is not considered wrong in those circumstances. So, it is not just that killing is wrong. It is killing someone for the wrong reasons that is wrong. Who decides what are the right reasons? People or "god". People have decided in many different cultures around the world that killing for different reasons is acceptable. In some cultures, it is ok to kill a family member for dishonoring the family. In other cultures, it is ok to kill a spouse for infidelity. In the USA, we have decided that abortion is acceptable in many cases. We also still permit capital punishment is many states. Other cultures would tell us we are barbaric and that this is unacceptable.
So, let us consider the idea that we should accept the standards set by god in the bible. Does he condone killing? Of course he does, and for many varied reasons. Of all the ideas about the bible, the concept that God is against killing people is one of the funniest. God is always telling us to kill other people. It is his "go to" response when he gets upset.
Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents 1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
As we can see, the god of the bible believes it is acceptable to kill almost anyone at any time. Let us not forget that he killed everyone on the face of the earth, except for 8 people, because he considered the entire human race too corrupt to exist. At least, that is one of the fables in the bible.
Do people follow these rules? Of course not. They are absurd and idiotic. If you tried to kill people for worshiping another god, you would never be done with this project. You also would be locked away in a lunatic asylum.
So, between the two concepts, of accepting that gods word is always right and assuming there are not moral absolutes, people have correctly decided there are no moral absolutes.
If the Pew folks are right, there are 15 Million Atheists in America. If the USA Today polls are right, the number is closer to 50 million.
Both numbers far outweigh all non-Christians combined, and then doubled.
No matter who you are, or where you are, there is one simple fact that you all have in common: you all know more atheists than you think you do
Many bible-versions mention odd creatures, such as a dragon, unicorn and satyr, and they even have flying serpents, and more.
The word unicorn occurs 9 times in the Old Testament (King James Version):
1.Numbers 23:22 – God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
2.Numbers 24:8 – God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
3.Deuteronomy 33:17 – His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
4.Job 39:9 – Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Report Reply0 Vote up Vote down Jeff Dixon · 1 minute ago
5.Job 39:10 – Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
6.Psalm 22:21 – Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
7.Psalm 29:6 – He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
8.Psalm 92:10 – But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
9.Isaiah 34:7 – And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
There are also these references to other imaginary creatures.
In Isaiah 13:21 we read, "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." A satyr is a creature of Greek mythology. It is supposed to be a man with a goat's legs, ears and horns.
In Numbers 21:6 we find the lord of the Bible sending "fiery serpents" to torment the people. What a great guy this Bible god must be! It reads, "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." And God is love??? To date, there never has been "fiery serpents" that actually existed.
In another case of the Bible god letting anger and hatred get the best of him is Jeremiah 8:17 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord." A cockatrice is another mythological creature. It is supposed to be a serpent that can kill just by looking at someone.
Probably the best known of all the mythical monsters that is found in the Bible is the dragon. There are 16 separate references to this mythological beast! And they're not only mentioned in a figurative way. Malachi 1:3 states: "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." Again, another mythological creature in a book of myth.
A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at? Ronald Reagan
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. Ronald Reagan
All great change in America begins at the dinner table. Ronald Reagan
All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk. Ronald Reagan
Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources. Ronald Reagan
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement. Ronald Reagan
But there are advantages to being elected President. The day after I was elected, I had my high school grades classified Top Secret. Ronald Reagan
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. Ronald Reagan
Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. Ronald Reagan Don't be afraid to see what you see. Ronald Reagan
Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known. Ronald Reagan
Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. Ronald Reagan
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Ronald Reagan
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. Ronald Reagan
Going to college offered me the chance to play football for four more years. Ronald Reagan
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets. Ronald Reagan
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. Ronald Reagan
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. Ronald Reagan
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Ronald Reagan
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. Ronald Reagan
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. Ronald Reagan
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them. Ronald Reagan
Heroes may not be braver than anyone else. They're just braver five minutes longer. Ronald Reagan
History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. Ronald Reagan
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. Ronald Reagan
I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. Ronald Reagan
I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. Ronald Reagan
I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary. Ronald Reagan
I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress. Ronald Reagan
I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life. Ronald Reagan
I never drink coffee at lunch. I find it keeps me awake for the afternoon. Ronald Reagan
I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a 'fat cat' and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a 'public-spirited philanthropist'. Ronald Reagan
I've often said there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse. Ronald Reagan
If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn't be here. It'd still be waiting for an environmental impact statement. Ronald Reagan
If the Soviet Union let another political party come into existence, they would still be a one-party state, because everybody would join the other party. Ronald Reagan
If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen. Ronald Reagan
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan
Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders. Ronald Reagan
It doesn't do good to open doors for someone who doesn't have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts. Ronald Reagan
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. Ronald Reagan
It's difficult to believe that people are still starving in this country because food isn't available. Ronald Reagan
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas. Ronald Reagan
It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance? Ronald Reagan
Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet. Ronald Reagan
Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith. Ronald Reagan
Let us not forget who we are. Drug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is. Ronald Reagan
My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes. Ronald Reagan
My philosophy of life is that if we make up our mind what we are going to make of our lives, then work hard toward that goal, we never lose - somehow we win out. Ronald Reagan
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! Ronald Reagan
No matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting. Ronald Reagan
No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology. Ronald Reagan
Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. Ronald Reagan
We can not play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Ronald Reagan
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan
We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child. Ronald Reagan
We might come closer to balancing the Budget if all of us lived closer to the Commandments and the Golden Rule. Ronald Reagan
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Ronald Reagan
We should declare war on North Vietnam. We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas. Ronald Reagan
We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added. Ronald Reagan
We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free. Ronald Reagan
We're in greater danger today than we were the day after Pearl Harbor. Our military is absolutely incapable of defending this country. Ronald Reagan
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence. Ronald Reagan
What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice. Ronald Reagan
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Ronald Reagan
While I take inspiration from the past, like most Americans, I live for the future. Ronald Reagan
Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face. Ronald Reagan
Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. Ronald Reagan
You can tell alot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans. Ronald Reagan
You know, if I listened to Michael Dukakis long enough, I would be convinced we're in an economic downturn and people are homeless and going without food and medical attention and that we've got to do something about the unemployed. Ronald Reagan