Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 184
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by iomatic
    Typical conservative tactic: ignore information, take a quote of context and then use it as a misguided insult at that.

    sigh.
    What?!?! Which part of his comment was information? His comment was 100% opinion.

    My point was that the majority rules. If he feels the majority is too far to the right he should take that into consideration. I simply used his words to justify my assumption that even he believes the majority to be on the "right".
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    T2 have you never seen the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to sanyone"? Any business has the right to not serve whomever they choose. It's their business. You want the government laying out operating procedures for businesses down to a list of who they can serve? Gimme a break.
    I think I could make a pretty good argument that the FDA has a vested interest for pharmacies to offer certain medications (maybe not birth control). Federal regulations abound in all the areas of our life for that very reason.

    I agree that businesses can have the right to refuse service...the problem is when they do it based on discrimination....remember, who does the business call to enforce their discriminatory policy...the police...a government agent. I am not a con law buff...but I think this has come up before and under Title VII? The government cant be made an agent to discriminate against people based on race, gender, age, religion, etc.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What?!?! Which part of his comment was information? His comment was 100% opinion.

    My point was that the majority rules. If he feels the majority is too far to the right he should take that into consideration. I simply used his words to justify my assumption that even he believes the majority to be on the "right".
    I think this is part of the larger problem in 'labeling' people and posts. Not everyone (or everything) is liberal or conservative.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think this is part of the larger problem in 'labeling' people and posts. Not everyone (or everything) is liberal or conservative.
    This has always been my complaint... I am not in China trying to remove thier traditions. I don't know why people are always trying to remove america's.
  5. #145  
    Here's a great article:

    Religious right targets church-state separation

    By **** Polman
    Knight Ridder Newspapers

    PHILADELPHIA Religious conservatives, emboldened by President Bush's re-election and confident of their political clout, are not interested in merely overhauling the judiciary. Ideally, they are seeking a judiciary that would remove the wall of separation between church and state.

    This ambition is stated clearly in numerous legal briefs on file at the Supreme Court in connection with a pending case; they seek removal of "a Berlin wall" that is "out of step with this nation's religious heritage." Their leaders argue in interviews that the church-state barrier is a "myth" invented by the high court in 1947, thanks to a twisted interpretation of our founding documents.

    Matthew Staver, a religious-right lawyer who recently argued a church-state case in front of the Supreme Court, said Friday, "The term 'separation of church and state' is an easy hook. People hear it, they think of the First Amendment. It's like the line 'Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,' and you think of Muhammad Ali.

    "But there's no 'separation' phrase in the First Amendment. ... Interpreting it that way is laughable."

    At the same time, he and others are eager to assure skeptical Americans that their dream of a barrier-free America is benign.

    "No way I want America to head toward a theocracy," said Staver, who has ties to the Rev. Jerry Falwell. "I don't know anybody interested in that; it's not on our radar screen."

    Yet their desire to breach the church-state wall coupled with their incessant attacks on "liberal activist" judges and their success in prodding Republicans to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case is sparking a backlash that threatens to sow new divisions. As Carlton Veazy, a Baptist leader in Washington, charged the other day, "We are being led to this theocracy by the Christian right, who will not stop until they take over the government."

    Critics believe the church-state barrier is being breached already: A Justice Department guidebook on treating rape victims excised draft language that touted emergency contraception; Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., wants to enact a federal "conscience" law to protect pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral grounds; and some Christian agencies may be using taxpayer money to proselytize and practice what critics call job discrimination.

    One Christian program in northeastern Pennsylvania, financed by Bush's faith-based initiative, requires each worker to be "a believer in Christ and Christian life today" and has spent taxpayer money on construction of church property. The sponsoring Firm Foundation is being sued by six local residents who say they don't want government to promote Christianity with their taxes.

    All told, there is a growing concern, even among conservative analysts, that the religious right's Republican allies might pay a political price for their collaboration. These analysts, for example, cite an April 14 remark by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who assailed the judiciary for trying "to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution."

    Glenn Simpson, a Tennessee law professor who runs the conservative Instapundit blog, wrote recently: "The Republicans' weakness is that people worry that they're the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they're now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life."

    Those fears are reflected in the latest Gallup poll, which reports that, by a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say that the religious right has too much influence on the Bush administration.

    Christian leaders do expect fealty from the GOP.

    "They feel that the political circumstances won't be this good again a strongly conservative Congress, a religiously conservative president," said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political analyst. "They've toiled for nearly 30 years, and the Republicans always said, 'Wait your turn.' They believe the time is now."

    And that means it's time to convince Americans that Thomas Jefferson, in a famous 1802 letter, was not really trying to curb religion when he endorsed "building a wall of separation between church and state." The high court invoked the phrase when it formally erected the wall in 1947.

    In legal briefs filed in a pending Supreme Court case on the posting of the Ten Commandments, religious-right groups note (accurately) that Jefferson's phrase appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution and that Jefferson wrote the phrase merely as a show of support for Connecticut's Baptists, who were upset that the state government was officially favoring the Congregationalists. Independent scholars say the religious right also is correct about this.

    But the briefs don't mention 1786, when young Jefferson authored a Virginia law separating church from state. This law is cited on his grave, at his request.

    "The religious right would love the court to say, 'We've been wrong since the '40s, so now you can do whatever you want,' " said Barry Lynn, who directs the Washington-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "Failing that, it'll push for 'theocracy lite' to make sure that you're a second-class citizen if you have different beliefs."
  6.    #146  
    DA, first, you've succeeded quite nicely in hijacking this thread.

    Second, link, please to this "article". I believe it is an opinion piece.

    Third, what you can not STAND is that people disagree with you, and that their disagreement is rooted in their faith, and that this opinions are popular enough to win control of the government.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    This has always been my complaint... I am not in China trying to remove thier traditions. I don't know why people are always trying to remove america's.
    What has China or the people in China have to do with America? Just because you are not trying to remove the traditions of the Chinese people does not mean that people who live here cant question the traditions that have been carried on here?

    Are you implying that Chinese people should shouldnt try to remove the traditions here in America (assuming that they are) because you arent in China trying to do the same thing? I am confused on the Chinese analogy.

    If your point is that we shouldnt remove our traditions then I can understand that. However, I am concerned when we are unwilling to question the same traditions just for the sake that they are indeed traditions. I don't think its very logical to say that "Because we have always done something a particular way, thats the way we should do it." It sounds a little circular.

    How can we be progressive as a nation if we dont question things? (i.e. racial discrimination, gender discrimination...these things came about because we questioned why we were doing it and then determined that it wasnt in our collective best interest to keep doing it.)

    I think the same approach can be applied when discussing the separation of church and state.

    (BTW-please keep in mind...I like discussing things and appreciate yours and everyone elses points of view. )
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    DA, first, you've succeeded quite nicely in hijacking this thread.

    Second, link, please to this "article". I believe it is an opinion piece.

    Third, what you can not STAND is that people disagree with you, and that their disagreement is rooted in their faith, and that this opinions are popular enough to win control of the government.
    If I have hijacked this thread...I appologize. I did have a question on the title of the thread:

    The "We're Smart, You're Dumb Principle: The ugly truth is that Democrats habitually

    What was the full title the thread?
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    DA, first, you've succeeded quite nicely in hijacking this thread.

    Second, link, please to this "article". I believe it is an opinion piece.

    Third, what you can not STAND is that people disagree with you, and that their disagreement is rooted in their faith, and that this opinions are popular enough to win control of the government.
    You've been provided the Author, title, and publication. Try news.google.com and see if you can't do that yourself.
  10.    #150  
    Another double standard. If I were to do that, you'd be screaming for a link.

    Which does, in fact, jibe with the topic of this thread, which is liberal hypocrisy. I also note that you don't refute the other points I made, primarily that anyone who disagrees with you has some ulterior agenda. I further that note in the OPINION PIECE you posted that several prominent Christian Conservatives state that there is no desire or intent on their part to instill a theocracy. You don't believe them. At the same time, I don't beleive Democrats when they talk about "reasonable" gun control, or tax increases "for the children". Yet your beliefs and goals are worthy, and mine are rooted in some theocratic conspriacy.

    Hmmm. let's try a simple substitution from the OPINION PIECE you posted.

    "MOVEON.ORG leaders do expect fealty from the DNC." Which is more than a simple substitution, since MoveOn.Org claimed ownership of the party after Kerry was flamed last November.

    Tell me, DA, why is it that people who work hard and get the votes to win the majority only get to set the agenda of they're liberal?
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Another double standard. If I were to do that, you'd be screaming for a link.

    Which does, in fact, jibe with the topic of this thread, which is liberal hypocrisy. I also note that you don't refute the other points I made, primarily that anyone who disagrees with you has some ulterior agenda. I further that note in the OPINION PIECE you posted that several prominent Christian Conservatives state that there is no desire or intent on their part to instill a theocracy. You don't believe them. At the same time, I don't beleive Democrats when they talk about "reasonable" gun control, or tax increases "for the children". Yet your beliefs and goals are worthy, and mine are rooted in some theocratic conspriacy.

    Hmmm. let's try a simple substitution from the OPINION PIECE you posted.

    "MOVEON.ORG leaders do expect fealty from the DNC." Which is more than a simple substitution, since MoveOn.Org claimed ownership of the party after Kerry was flamed last November.

    Tell me, DA, why is it that people who work hard and get the votes to win the majority only get to set the agenda of they're liberal?
    We've been over this before. If one states they read something somewhere, I ask for a cite. If you post the actual content I can google it. If google finds nothing I question the source again.

    The above is not an opinion piece. However, I'm sure you will apply the republican method of repeating a falsehood often enough to try and make people believe it.
  12.    #152  
    And again you dodge the central issue...which is how is it when you side works hard and wins the majority it is democracy in action, but if conservatives do that it is the end of the world? You keep dodging.....
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    What has China or the people in China have to do with America? Just because you are not trying to remove the traditions of the Chinese people does not mean that people who live here cant question the traditions that have been carried on here?

    Are you implying that Chinese people should shouldnt try to remove the traditions here in America (assuming that they are) because you arent in China trying to do the same thing? I am confused on the Chinese analogy.
    I just wonder how many other countries erase thier history just to make the minority feel more comfortable.
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If your point is that we shouldnt remove our traditions then I can understand that. However, I am concerned when we are unwilling to question the same traditions just for the sake that they are indeed traditions. I don't think its very logical to say that "Because we have always done something a particular way, thats the way we should do it." It sounds a little circular.

    How can we be progressive as a nation if we dont question things? (i.e. racial discrimination, gender discrimination...these things came about because we questioned why we were doing it and then determined that it wasnt in our collective best interest to keep doing it.)

    I think the same approach can be applied when discussing the separation of church and state.
    I realize there were mistakes in the past, and we are better for correcting them. However, I don't believe they (slavery for example) were at the very core of America's conception. I just don't see how removing any mention of God from our Declaration of Independance or any subsequent documents will make us "better" people. Change is good but only if its progress.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    We've been over this before. If one states they read something somewhere, I ask for a cite. If you post the actual content I can google it. If google finds nothing I question the source again..
    Still, it would be a courtesy to post the link. I'm assuming that you're doing a cut and paste of the article anyways, so it wouldn't be hard to cut and paste the URL as well.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I realize there were mistakes in the past, and we are better for correcting them. However, I don't believe they (slavery for example) were at the very core of America's conception. I just don't see how removing any mention of God from our Declaration of Independance or any subsequent documents will make us "better" people. Change is good but only if its progress.
    But who is trying to remove God from the Declaration? It's a written document. I don't think you can just walk up to the National Archives with a bottle of white-out and edit something of that nature.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    But who is trying to remove God from the Declaration? It's a written document. I don't think you can just walk up to the National Archives with a bottle of white-out and edit something of that nature.
    Yea, no one is trying to edit history, just keep to the meaning and spirit of the First Amendment.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, no one is trying to edit history, just keep to the meaning and spirit of the First Amendment.
    How is it a registered Republican can be agreeing with you?? O' the humanity!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think I could make a pretty good argument that the FDA has a vested interest for pharmacies to offer certain medications (maybe not birth control).
    I hope not. That would be a conflict of interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Federal regulations abound in all the areas of our life for that very reason.
    Over abound, if you ask me
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree that businesses can have the right to refuse service...the problem is when they do it based on discrimination
    There is no other means of refusing service. When ever someone chooses to refuse service, it is on the basis of something that distinguishes the refused from the served. In this case though, we are talking about refusing to carry a particular prodeuct, not refusing to serve a particular customer
  19.    #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, no one is trying to edit history, just keep to the meaning and spirit of the First Amendment.
    So DA, you're a Constitutional originalist? Then you must have no objection to the judges that W is trying to get approved by the Senate! Great! I'm sure that you'll be calling your senators tomorrow to tell them to break the deadlock and give those qualified judges and up or down vote!

    No? Then maybe you can explain to me why it is that only some people should be allowed to vote and gain the majority and exert their will.
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I just wonder how many other countries erase thier history just to make the minority feel more comfortable.
    I wouldnt consider it erasing our history...more like just clearing up the line between church and state. I agree that this country was founded on Christian principles with christian leaders. I just don't agree that because of those two factors that the founding fathers intended to create a nation that did not have a separation of church and state.

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I realize there were mistakes in the past, and we are better for correcting them. However, I don't believe they (slavery for example) were at the very core of America's conception.
    I disagree. Slavery was very much a part of this country's conception. The southern states econonomy was based on it. We had a civil war over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I just don't see how removing any mention of God from our Declaration of Independance
    Thats not whats happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    or any subsequent documents will make us "better" people.
    If we have a choice between integrating or not integrating church and state, then I dont think we should.

    Remember I am a Christian. I just think that if this country was being run by a majority party that was Hinduistic (or any other religion different than Christianity...that the point would be easier to see.)

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Change is good but only if its progress.
    Agreed.
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions