I would be happy to give up my right to bear arms in any city that has found it reasonable to search for and seize any borne arms. The curtailments already exist on most public property anyway.
You tell me what conservative principals you want me to sacrifice. Hell I could be more like you if you would be more like me. That was easy.
Yeah, but there’s no law against a court being conservative or liberal. There is one against a court being religious. Courts that can’t obey the law aren’t reliable as arbiters of the law.
Actually, the compromise is that anyone can practice what ever religion they like, and the law takes no sides. What you’re advocating is a violation of that compromise.
Well, my liberal compromise is I really don’t give a shit about guns. So I guess that issue is a wash, 'tween you and me.
Admitted, The tug of war of words has been going on for a long long time. But of late, the last 8 years, it has been an endless droning cacophony. It pervades everything, print, TV, Radio, schools, and etc. There has not been a concession in that time that I can think of.
So you think that no one can figure out not to steal without the 10 commandments? :rolleyes:
Check out the first commandment sometime. How is that going to feel for the Hindu guy who has a bunch of gods or me who has none? Exactly what place does that have in a building paid for by all our tax money.
BTW, we’ve been governed by the conservative principles you love so much for 7 years. How is that working out? Global warming affects everyone - and the business loving conservatives in the US are the ones denying it. Are liberals to blame for that?
What do you mean about mortality? The US life expectancy continues to climb. The non-problem of Social Security has already been mentioned. If you’d actually look at the data, not the rantings of right wing chowderheads, you’d see that Social Security will start paying out more than it gets in a bunch of years (which is not insolvent), this is a problem only with fairly pessimistic assumptions, and a small increase in the cap for taking out taxes will fix the problem very easily. Social Security was in far worse shape 24 years ago.
Some of this stuff is just nonsense. I assure you there are plenty of younger people who will step up to management. I’m getting reasonably close to retirement, and I’m not old enough to remember either the war or the depression. My father, who does, is over 90.
What outflow from California are you talking about. (The people in Oregon think there is one, no one else.) I moved here 11 years ago, and I don’t see it getting less crowded. I also don’t see the politics as being that different from New Jersey. Now, if you’re comparing us to the Bible Belt where religion gets pushed into one’s face, you might have a point - but I’d rather live by the Constitution myself.
Though it appears you don’t like the Constitution very much, America has lasted this long because of the diversity of opinions. Too bad you don’t like it.
Now I think we’re getting to an underlying issue that points to your previous contradictions. You see, the separation of church and state exists so that no one will feel excluded from any particular governmental establishment. I don’t think you’d be particularly comfortable to find your city hall promoting the tenants of Scientology. Just. keep. faith. out. of. it.
A lot of our laws are already built on a lot of the ideals of some of the 10 commandments. It has nothing to do with faith, and more with common sense. The great thing about this separation? Anyone is free to pray whenever, to whomever, and wherever they want as individuals.
Also, you’ve got this point completely turned around backwards. Let me fix it for you…
6. And, the people don’t need nor welcome some religious organization splitting fucking hairs telling them how they should live.
The operative word again is feel. There is nothing in the documents that talks about feelings.
There is nothing in what Jefferson wrote that talks about feelings.
There is nothing in what Thomas Jefferson wrote and Madison championed aboput feelings.
Praying is not promoting… I might add that government officials who wish to pray before the meetings and in public have been permitted in Madison’s opinion to do so. “ no man … shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief" If a man thinks he will suffer I will respect that and give a couple of minutes to collect his thoughts however he wishes.
I wouldn’t care if the city officials were a coven of witches, all other things being constant.
An elected official is also an individual and must be allowed certain leeway so that his public duties do not conflict with his matters of religion.
I might add that feelings are very powerful and all people react in automatic knee jerk fashion to certain stimulus. I found this course that I took 10 years ago very helpful.
You are protected by what
Thomas Jefferson wrote and Madison championed
No not turned around, both are true.
It seems both are valid.
Ummmm… how’s that religion thing working out for you? This is remarkably inconsistent - as has your entire round of posting in this thread, up to and including your OP.
…Especially when they don’t have much hair left, eh cmyk?
Ummmmm… You find it incongruous that a proponent of freedom of religion would not be a holy roller. You are not up to finding the flaws in the logic and must resort to general dismissal.
You have proved my suspicion that no common ground can be found, at least in your mind, regarding the freedom of religion debate.
Considering that up to a year ago, he was a fundamentalist Christian and has almost always (in every discussion he and I have had about religion) argued from religion’s view point…you just proved you have a remarkable lack of insight.
Who talks like that? I just wanna pinch your cheeks and pat you on the head!
Damn skippy!
It seems everything you want and are describing can be found in a church. Who in their right mind would want to hold church in a public hall of some sort?
See? It’s simple. Practice religion in your home, at a church (imagine that!), or in the gawdamn street for all anyone cares. Why do you need to bring it into a civil gathering? It sounds compulsive the way you’re describing these “feelings”.
Sorry, dude. You are not a proponent of religious freedom in this debate. Quite the opposite, in fact. Religious freedom can only be guaranteed in this country by strict observation of the seperation between church and state. This wall is vital to the health of government, individual liberties, and religion. I support the first ammendment because I do not want to see any of these three institutions diminished.
No, it’s not valid. You can’t have it both ways. You want religion in the state, then you’re gonna have to accept state in your religion.
HEY!
I have a better idea, let’s separate the two. That way, we can have our cake and eat it too. Now the gov can stay out of church, and vice versa. And the congregation shouted out a big “DUH!” and they rejoiced with music and the holy tambourine.
Unless you see the governmental channels as a way of proselytizing? If so, how very un-American.
No, they didn’t. The ACLU was not the plaintiff in that case. The named plaintiffs in that case were three individuals who lived in the area, Dr. Richard Smith, a Jewish American veteran; Mina Sagheb, his Muslim American wife; a Judith Copeland; and the Jewish War Veterans, who had three posts in the San Diego area. If those individuals in the community had not objected, the case could not have been filed.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The point I’m making is that the ACLU can’t and doesn’t just come in “splitting hairs telling [people] how they should live.” It has to represent an individual or group with standing to sue.
I agree that there haven’t been many concessions in the past 8 years. I think a major reason for that, though, is that a lot of people say they are interested in compromising, when in fact they just continue to blindly push their agenda. “Endless droning cacophony” is a very apt description of this behavior.
However, I don’t think this is an indication that our country is unraveling. This type of stuff has been happening for as long as I’ve been around, and much further back than that.
There’s no need for the documents to explicitly talk about feelings, because they are implicitly talking about them. Why else would we have freedom to have whatever system of beliefs we want, if not to “feel” safe and secure from having those beliefs intruded on by the state?
Why can’t the government officials pray silently before the meetings? Or why can’t they get together with a bunch of other like-minded officials - outside of the meeting - to pray publicly?
Why do they need some kind of leeway? Leeway for what? No one is trying to impede their personal beliefs; they’re only trying to impede the forcing of those personal beliefs onto unwilling citizens.
bump, this is perfect. So, so true. I’m a fairly liberal person; my dad’s a fairly conservative person. We both want the same things for our community. We want good public schools and safe neighborhoods. We want small businesses to thrive. We want to know that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead. We want remarkably similar ends, we just differ on the means.