In a an effort to ressurect his fledgling Presidential Campaign, Democratic hopeful Senator John Kerry (D-MA), angrily criticized President Bush's Iraq policy by inserting the controversial but always popular "f" word in denouncing the President. While, Parson Harper would impose sanctions on me if I uttered the word across these pages apparently Senator Kerry is unfazed by the incident since he has indicated he is not going to apologize nor does he see anything improper in his choice of tony speech. My, my, my!!! Political life must be real difficult for the decorated Vietnam veteran who continues to trail the liberal ex-Governor from Vermont in the polls and fund raising. I guess resorting to cursing and cussing can change directions. QED

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

Answers

No it won't chnage his direction. It was a sorry attempt at getting votes from the I guess you might say the young hip crowd at 'Rolling Stone Magazine.' It was pathetic, low, and sad.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

There appears to be bi-partisan preference for use of the "F" word. Similar to the cussing Democratic front-runner for President, Vice- President Cheney's heated exchange with Sen. Leahy also made reference to the popular obsenity. The Washington Post pubished the word without editing. Political disagreements tend to evoke strong emotional reactions. Civility and restraint are the chief casualties when we condone unregulated passionate speech. Incivility is not limited to politicians. Many of us know church members who "cuss" like sailors yet we are quick to dismiss the gruff communications as harmelss talk. I noticed when this thread originated about Kerry's lascivious language only Mary came out and chastised the candidate. Given the anti-Bush/Cheney sentiments shared by many on this BB I'm predicting more will lash out against Cheney. QED

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2004

I agree with Vice-President Cheney. It is something that needed to be done a long time ago. And I'm glad he did not apologize for it either. As to cursing, Jesus cursed the fig tree when he went to get some figs to eat and found it with only leaves. But I guess that is not "cussin". Cussin may be vulgar and uncouth and indicate a small vocabulary but I can't find the command, "Thou shalt not cuss."

By the way, President Bush, while being interviewed by the press in Ireland said to the interviewer: "You ask the questions and I will give the answers. That is the way it works." I say BRAVO to both Bush and Cheney for standing up rather than trying to be PC. Its about time.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2004

Reverend Paris,

There may be no command which says "Thou Shalt not Cuss" but throughout the Bible we have words on it which to me are perfectly clear. Thus, they provide me with sufficient warning about the words I choose to be appropriate and intelligent speech.

James 1:6 - If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Colossians 3:8 - But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Psalm 34:13 - Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.

Proverb 21:23 - Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.

James 3: 6 - And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2004

At least Mary is a woman of integrity. How can anyone support the Vice-President in using low brow language when addressing a United States Senator. Oh I forgot it was the "republican tag team" at work. See, many may interpret that remark as Low Brow and others will say it is right on. Yet it puts a divide perhaps a strong divide between the parties involved and it does not foster healing, reconciliation or understanding. Vice President, you were wrong and you should apologize. Senator Leahy whether or not he apologizes forgive him anyway and do what it right for the country.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2004

Parson Paris -

The Vice-President should have exercised better restraint in his vocal response to Sen. Leahy. Even though Leahy's remarks about Haliburton and the VP are bordeline slander and aimed at purely partisan advantage, it is always better to take the higher moral ground. Once you stoop to the ethical level of your political opponents you forfeit any real claim to having a sense of moral authority. Speaking of the topic integrity it is interesting that during the Kerry cussing incident not a single Democratic Senator came out and demanded Kerry apologize to President Bush. I suppose it is safe to say integrity is conspicuously absent in the Democratic Senate. Kerry himself adamantly refused to apologize. I suspect he uttered a few more profanities when asked if he would apologize. Now we read where Brother Harold is suggesing that Mr. Cheney should apologize for his rude and crude remarks to Sen. Pat Leahy. I agree. Cheney should apologize. The tradition of the US Senate proudly proclaims it is the world's most revered deliberative body. Cussing out our opponents or accepting a pistol duel like Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr are acts un-becoming on the Senate floor. What I find interesting, yet predictable, was the absence of any discussion, save Mary's lone remarks on this BB, that Kerry should apologize. Once again, due to partisan bias, we get caught up in the fog of "doing what is right". QED

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2004

The Veep has already said that no apology will be coming, besides it mad him feel better. The senator has had that coming for a long time. I applaud and agree with the Veep!

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2004

Pastor Paris:

This really saddens me. The Vice-President ought to be ashamed of himself and while you may agree with outburst, I don't see how you can ethically uphold his inappropriate behavior. Especially just because it made him feel better. Perhaps if a few of your members or your colleagues or your PE or Bishop cussed you out (just because it made them feel better) you might think differently.

With regard to Sen. Kerry I agree with Mary that he ought to be ashamed as well. This cussing as a sign of toughness mess is ridiculous. It only makes the perpetrator look bad.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2004

Since Senator Kerry is addressing the General Conference on July 6th it will be interesting to see if he comments on: A. The VP's cussing incident and B. Whether he will offer an apology for his own boorish and rude remarks about President Bush.

If Kerry is a man of integrity and principle he will take the road less traveled (high moral ground) which I offered earlier. However, I'm a realist and I know his prepared remarks and comments are designed only to keep the black Democratic faithful in the fold. Never mind that his recent TV ads demanding that the US should have universal health insurance coverage are grossly misleading (a Democratic-controlled Congress in Clinton's first term failed to deliver health care reform), or his attacks on the "jobless" economic recovery do not square with labor market gains which show GDP and job growth or the fact that significant progress has been made in achieving a democratic Iraq. Partisan politics will trump personal principle. I won't be holding my breath for any such mea culpa. QED

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2004

OK! But I bet Kerry won't use the "F" word when addressing the AME convention. :-)

In any event, I wish ALL politicians will choose to climb out of the gutter and elevate the American public. Kerry and Cheney are not the first to curse and act up in congress nor will they be the last. It would be so wonderful to have a candidate that can lead public discourse from swearing and confusion to a better place.

I don't know about you, but I know me, and I can curse up a storm, although I don't like myself after I've done all the swearing. Even though I've released some of the steam I don't feel better. For the most part I feel failure and wish that I never uttered the words. My mother told me that once you release words you cannot take them back. The sentiment has been expressed and feelings hurt. Saying I'm sorry may do some good, but not a whole lot. The hearer received ugly words into their soul and it became a part of them. I am learning to be more careful of what I say, so that once the words are released, they reflect exactly what I meant to say.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2004

Well, perhaps I am a little too strong. But, the US Senator has shown no respect for the Office of Vice-President or for that matter the President. What the Vice-President said was said in private and overheard by another senator who chose to make it public.The Democrats routinely trash President Bush and Vice President Cheney. For example, on this board some of us refer to the president, calling him "Bush" and "Cheney". The way I was raised, you respect the Office if you can't respect the Office-Holder. I understand how the Vice-President felt because Senator Leahey has been trashing him since the election. NOw I know some will disagree with the following. For example, Senator Clinton and other elected officials, when speaking to black audiences, continue to say that this Administration was illegally put in office by the Supreme Court because former Vice President Gore won the popular vote. Every elected official and elementary students know that the president is NOT elected by the popular vote but by the Electors of the Electoral College. It disgusts me that that only happens when addressing our people, as if to say we are ignorant of the election process.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2004

Mary,

I agree with you no apology can erase what has once been said. As far as I am concerned anything we get is an improvement over what we have had to endure these past four years. I will be arriving at the General Conference on July 5 and will be happy to hear what Senator Kerry has to say. Without a doubt he already has my vote of confidence.

BTW more often than not candidates who take the time to show up and address the General Conference of the A. M. E. Church by and large are the one who are elected in November of that year.

There are of course exceptions to this rule but usually when the election are fare and square and Jerry Mandering has not occurred, the favorite of the Conference is elected that year provided they have not sent a substitute to the General Conference to speak for them.

President Jimmy Carter learned this lesson long ago. Having spent time in the home of Bishop William Decker Johnson and his son, who lived in Sumpter County where Carter also lived, Carter said he knew better than to miss a General Conference of the A. M. E. Church when he ran in 1976.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2004

Brother Matthews:

I pray you have safe passage to Indianapolis and enjoy every bit of the Conference. I wish that I could be there.

It will be interesting to hear what Kerry has to say. Unfortunately, candidates have learned to stay in a gray zone as to not offend and not offer any real insight into their programs. It would be nice to have Kerry and Bush on an open mike with a question and answer period. I know it would never happen, but the reporters have neglected to ask candidates the really hard questions that need to be answered before the election. Right now I am tired of the political rhetoric. I cannot swallow the lies of the Republicans nor the weakness of the Democrats. Our nation is stooping instead of rising. Rev. Hogarth wrote many years ago, "if the priests are ignorant, unacquainted with human nature, unacquainted with the human mind, their manners low and unimproved, so will the people be. That we need an enlightened, educated ministry no one ought to deny." As with the priests we need an enlightened and educated government with high and improved moral code and manners. I know God hears the prayers of His children and will answer our humble cry. While on others He is calling, He will not pass us by.! God bless.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2004

Rev. Paris:

Each vote is important because it determines how the electoral college votes go. I suggest you look at the www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm website. There you will learn that "Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district]."

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2004

I agree Mary, you are absolutely correct as far as each state is concerned. However, the total popular vote does not determine the winner. The total number of Electoral votes determine the winner. For example, President Bush had the greater number of Electoral votes and former VP Gore had the most popular votes nationwide. This happened because VP Gore won California and other large states by a large margin where President Bush won a bunch of small states. That is the purpose of the Electoral College so that the densely populated states such as California and New York does not dominate the process. So under our process, the electio n was perfectly legal. The Supreme Court merely stopped the recounts to protect the state of the nation.

-- Anonymous, June 30, 2004

Because of the Electoral College, it is most important that each individual vote be counted. What happened in Florida in the last presidential election was a travesty and should never have happened in this country. That type of vote tallying was more indicative of some back water third world country than the USA, and we as Americans should have been embarassed and made sure that it never happens again. Votes were not counted.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2004

Mary, I have no argument with that at all. The recount with "hanging chads" etc. should never have had to happen. The election officials did not do their jobs.

-- Anonymous, July 01, 2004