|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 22, 2008 11:53:37 GMT -5
The American Left.
Owning defeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 22, 2008 12:48:53 GMT -5
Well said Mink.
Sudjoe, the left bans religion in courthouses, schools, public squares etc. because the separation of church and state was something our country was founded upon. If it were up to the Right we would all be urged to pray to a Christian God. The freedom to practice whichever religion we choose (or none at all) is something the Left works diligently to protect.
And what about the Right wanting to "ban" gay marriage? Or "banning" sodomy as some states in the South have? Or taking away a woman's right to choose? Or taking away our privacy through the Patriot Act? Or listening to our phone calls without telling us?
You see, Republicans are very selective in the way they want our "freedoms" to be. They think we should be free to own as many high-powered guns as we want, spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and get filthy rich but pay relatively little in taxes. Yet they want to pigeonhole us culturally, creating a narrow definition of what "an American" should be. That, in its essence, is un-American.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Aug 22, 2008 12:50:18 GMT -5
SUREFIRE; I agree, not all Dems are like that. I think the vast silent majority of them are pretty much middle of the road. But the leadership, the movers and shakers, and the vocal and provocatifve portion of the rank and file, especailly here in CA,, fit my description. Agreed. It is the leadership, especially in CA and a handful other other socialist leaning states, that is the issue. And it seems to me that the closer one gets to the Bay Area, the more extreme the leaders are. I find it disturbing that the same corrupt people keep being put back in the office. Perata has had at least 2 FBI investigations sent his way that I know about, and he is still in office. He also is very anti-gun, yet has carried a gun himself for a period of time. Like I said in a previous post, it must be nice to be an elitist politician that doesn't have to follow the rules of the everyday person. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Aug 22, 2008 12:55:07 GMT -5
Well said Mink. Sudjoe, the left bans religion in courthouses, schools, public squares etc. because the separation of church and state was something our country was founded upon. If it were up to the Right we would all be urged to pray to a Christian God. The freedom to practice whichever religion we choose (or none at all) is something the Left works diligently to protect. And what about the Right wanting to "ban" gay marriage? Or "banning" sodomy as some states in the South have? Or taking away a woman's right to choose? Or taking away our privacy through the Patriot Act? Or listening to our phone calls without telling us? You see, Republicans are very selective in the way they want our "freedoms" to be. They think we should be free to own as many high-powered guns as we want, spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and get filthy rich but pay relatively little in taxes. Yet they want to pigeonhole us culturally, creating a narrow definition of what "an American" should be. That, in its essence, is un-American. I think both parties are guilty of selecting which freedoms they want. This is why I hope, although I know it is unlikely, that we may see a third party come to power one day. From my point of view, the current 2 party system has a huge gag reflex. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 22, 2008 13:08:52 GMT -5
Well said Mink. Sudjoe, the left bans religion in courthouses, schools, public squares etc. because the separation of church and state was something our country was founded upon. If it were up to the Right we would all be urged to pray to a Christian God. The freedom to practice whichever religion we choose (or none at all) is something the Left works diligently to protect. And what about the Right wanting to "ban" gay marriage? Or "banning" sodomy as some states in the South have? Or taking away a woman's right to choose? Or taking away our privacy through the Patriot Act? Or listening to our phone calls without telling us? You see, Republicans are very selective in the way they want our "freedoms" to be. They think we should be free to own as many high-powered guns as we want, spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and get filthy rich but pay relatively little in taxes. Yet they want to pigeonhole us culturally, creating a narrow definition of what "an American" should be. That, in its essence, is un-American. I think both parties are guilty of selecting which freedoms they want. This is why I hope, although I know it is unlikely, that we may see a third party come to power one day. From my point of view, the current 2 party system has a huge gag reflex. I agree with you about the 2 party system but when you have "winner takes all" elections like we do that's what you get. I don't agree about both parties being selective about which freedoms they want. Democrats seem to be the more intelligent party as they work to regulate potentially dangerous circumstances (i.e. guns, pollution, business practices) while still allowing freedoms. For instance, the left believes that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own guns, the person just needs proper certification and the gun must be traceable. A sound idea, right? Pollution should be regulated and polluters held accountable because pollution is harmful to people and our planet. Pretty reasonable, right? |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Aug 22, 2008 13:35:55 GMT -5
I don't agree about both parties being selective about which freedoms they want. Democrats seem to be the more intelligent party as they work to regulate potentially dangerous circumstances (i.e. guns, pollution, business practices) while still allowing freedoms. For instance, the left believes that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own guns, the person just needs proper certification and the gun must be traceable. A sound idea, right? Pollution should be regulated and polluters held accountable because pollution is harmful to people and our planet. Pretty reasonable, right? Perhaps the moderate left believes that about guns. IMO...The extreme left, those running California, are anything but rational about the gun laws. For instance, our "discretionary" CCW laws are a joke. Those that live in dangerous (counties) are not issued CCWs. Those in small counties with low crime can get CCWs-- there are IIRC 2 smaller counties that tend to be generous with CCWs. It was also the extreme left that attempted to ban all handguns in SF, but for now the courts intervened. In most CA big counties, they are handed out only to those in power or with lots of fame and money (politicians, big name actors, etc). What the liberals don't seem to get is that it is NOT the law abiding gun owners that go around committing drive-bys. Taking the guns out of the good citizens hands does NOTHING to prevent criminals, IMO. From my point of view (I'm NOT a republican BTW), the left is just as guilty, perhaps even more so in CA, at chipping away at freedoms. Also, from my point of view, the 2nd admendment is one of the most important freedoms in this country. I believe that once it goes, we will slowly see the others go along with it. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 22, 2008 14:06:31 GMT -5
Well said Mink. Sudjoe, the left bans religion in courthouses, schools, public squares etc. because the separation of church and state was something our country was founded upon. If it were up to the Right we would all be urged to pray to a Christian God. The freedom to practice whichever religion we choose (or none at all) is something the Left works diligently to protect. And what about the Right wanting to "ban" gay marriage? Or "banning" sodomy as some states in the South have? Or taking away a woman's right to choose? Or taking away our privacy through the Patriot Act? Or listening to our phone calls without telling us? You see, Republicans are very selective in the way they want our "freedoms" to be. They think we should be free to own as many high-powered guns as we want, spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and get filthy rich but pay relatively little in taxes. Yet they want to pigeonhole us culturally, creating a narrow definition of what "an American" should be. That, in its essence, is un-American. You obviously have bought into the ACLU rhetoric about the separation of church and state. It is true we have a secular government, but there is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of Church and State. In fact, I doubt you understand exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States actually says. Here let me post if for you, so you can read it and be clear. Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/u] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I italicized the proper section, and underlined the portion that is violated by not allowing people to place the Ten Commandments in locations they decide is OK. This Amendment was intended to promote religious tolerance, but the left through the ACLU uses the first portion of the clause to promote religious intolerance. Everyone, and I mean everyone has the right to freely exercise their religion without fear of reprisal. Yet, by forcing a judge to take the Ten Commandments out of his office, or denying a town the right to display them in their town square, you are denying the free practice clause. That is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 22, 2008 14:24:48 GMT -5
Well said Mink. Sudjoe, the left bans religion in courthouses, schools, public squares etc. because the separation of church and state was something our country was founded upon. If it were up to the Right we would all be urged to pray to a Christian God. The freedom to practice whichever religion we choose (or none at all) is something the Left works diligently to protect. And what about the Right wanting to "ban" gay marriage? Or "banning" sodomy as some states in the South have? Or taking away a woman's right to choose? Or taking away our privacy through the Patriot Act? Or listening to our phone calls without telling us? You see, Republicans are very selective in the way they want our "freedoms" to be. They think we should be free to own as many high-powered guns as we want, spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and get filthy rich but pay relatively little in taxes. Yet they want to pigeonhole us culturally, creating a narrow definition of what "an American" should be. That, in its essence, is un-American. You obviously have bought into the ACLU rhetoric about the separation of church and state. It is true we have a secular government, but there is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of Church and State. In fact, I doubt you understand exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States actually says. Here let me post if for you, so you can read it and be clear. Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/u] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I italicized the proper section, and underlined the portion that is violated by not allowing people to place the Ten Commandments in locations they decide is OK. This Amendment was intended to promote religious tolerance, but the left through the ACLU uses the first portion of the clause to promote religious intolerance. Everyone, and I mean everyone has the right to freely exercise their religion without fear of reprisal. Yet, by forcing a judge to take the Ten Commandments out of his office, or denying a town the right to display them in their town square, you are denying the free practice clause. That is wrong.[/quote] So, by your logic, if a judge wanted to hang an excerpt from the Koran in his courtroom that would be okay? If a Muslim child in school wanted a Muslim prayer to play over the loudspeaker after the Christian one would you be okay with that? If the Atheist children didn't want to be exposed to either prayer you would be okay with letting them leave the classroom? You see, the portion you underlined applies to all religions, not just Christianity. And when you allow all religions the right to display whatever they want wherever they want it creates a clusterf**k of epic proportions in this "melting pot" that is America. Thus, the separation of church and state is necessary to be fair to all and maintain order. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 22, 2008 15:13:08 GMT -5
So, by your logic, if a judge wanted to hang an excerpt from the Koran in his courtroom that would be okay? If a Muslim child in school wanted a Muslim prayer to play over the loudspeaker after the Christian one would you be okay with that? If the Atheist children didn't want to be exposed to either prayer you would be okay with letting them leave the classroom? You see, the portion you underlined applies to all religions, not just Christianity. And when you allow all religions the right to display whatever they want wherever they want it creates a clusterf**k of epic proportions in this "melting pot" that is America. Thus, the separation of church and state is necessary to be fair to all and maintain order. Well, that's an interesting argument on the suppression of religious expression. Novel as it is, it is rather hollow. In the interest of fairness to all, you would repress religious expression of any kind. No, I don't have a problem with an atheist child leaving the classroom if every other child in the classroom wanted to pray. That's called "democracy" - something your party professes to stand for. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 22, 2008 15:20:17 GMT -5
Nice logic, I will deny your rights just to make sure there is no clutter.
Personally, I find most of your arguments disturbing. But, let's address them.
One, in a school no one has a right to say a prayer over the loud speaker, period. Why, because it is government property. However, if you want to say a prayer over your own loud speaker, I have no problem with it, unless it disrupts class.
Two, the judge that displayed the ten commandments did not do it in his court room, it was in his office chambers. But, I would have no problems with a judge displaying the Koran in his office. I believe in religious freedom.
No, and atheist child does not have a right to leave a class room if a Muslim or Christian child decides to pray before class. That would be promoting intolerance. They do, however, have a right to reflect quietly in their seats and not be subjected to a State sponsored religion.
Four, how dare you to presume I believe that the underlined portion only applies to Christianity, you are showing a very high level of disrespect to me by trying to make me look as intolerant as the left leaning jerks who think there is a separation of church and state that applies to individuals. I just might have to come back when my hour is up and smite you one more time for that.
No where did I say people have a right to display whatever they want, where ever they want. Like a typical liberal, you misinterpret the very meaning of the clause. It simply means that there is no state sponsored religion allowed in this great nation, and that we should tolerate the religious beliefs of others, though they may differ from our own. But, you know nothing of tolerance beyond the talking points of your liberal leaning party. But, I should expect no less.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 22, 2008 15:42:45 GMT -5
I'm with you on this one. Quiet religious reflection is fine by me as long as class isn't disrupted. My point is that if the Right had their way, Christian prayer WOULD be broadcast over the loudspeaker. Bill O'Reilly has advocated this on several occasions. Wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore Again, I'm with you on this one. I was assuming the loudspeaker prayer. I was assuming. Many on the Right including O'Reilly have proposed that we should officially be "a Christian nation." |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Aug 22, 2008 16:10:18 GMT -5
Saunterelle sez...
We know when we're really getting to you when you claim that Bill O'Reilly is the spokesperson for all of the Right. Would it also be fair to characterize Keith Olbermann as the official spokesperson for the Left? Or, would you prefer Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller?
I really think Saunterelle has created an alter ego here that he uses to exalt himself. Otherwise, he'd be in deep negative numbers.
|
|
