Originally posted by sh76 Maybe, what he's proposing is:
1. right to free speech, regardless of whether what you say offends other people
2.right to free press, regardless of what the political opinions of the members of the press are
3.right to free worship, regardless of whether your worship offends other people
4.right to a trial by jury, as long as the interests of the ...[text shortened]... by a neutral magistrate or by an exception to the warrant requirement that justifies the search
That is somewhat what he was suggesting - but my main problem is his blatantly idiotic mischaracterization of what progressives would want.
For example, the people who challenge religious displays, etc on public property aren't fighting to repress religion, they're just fighting to keep the government from actually endorsing one.
I haven't heard any progressives advocate anything other than those positions you listed.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn That is somewhat what he was suggesting - but my main problem is his blatantly idiotic mischaracterization of what progressives would want.
For example, the people who challenge religious displays, etc on public property aren't fighting to repress religion, they're just fighting to keep the government from actually endorsing one.
I haven't heard any progressives advocate anything other than those positions you listed.
For example, the people who challenge religious displays, etc on public property aren't fighting to repress religion, they're just fighting to keep the government from actually endorsing one.
strangely enough, in brazil (despite the separation between church and state) we still have crucifixes everywhere.
for example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brazilian_Supreme_Federal_Tribunal.jpg
Originally posted by generalissimo [b]For example, the people who challenge religious displays, etc on public property aren't fighting to repress religion, they're just fighting to keep the government from actually endorsing one.
strangely enough, in brazil (despite the separation between church and state) we still have crucifixes everywhere.
for example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brazilian_Supreme_Federal_Tribunal.jpg
nobody is complaining though.[/b]
Well, we have "in god we trust" on our money and other stuff too and I'm glad people are complaining.
A lot of the things don't directly impede a person's ability or freedom to worship, but they do amount to an endorsement of religion by the government.
The Church vs State issue is one of those "wedge issues" that creates lots of misunderstandings on all sides
One of the problems is that you have a lot of what I call "wedge issue groups".
Here's the basic business model. Find a contentious issue (religion, guns, abortion, affirmative action). Take an extreme position and-or call the other side lots of terrible names. Send out mailings stating that Armageddon will be upon us unless some group of "whackos" is stopped. Make a desperate plea for donations and-or membership dues. Collect donations and-or membership dues. Rinse. Repeat.
And they end up getting lots of people scared over the prospect that the government is about to take everyone's gun away, or that that the government is going to shut down your church, or that Republicans are about to abolish Social Security, or that all the water will soon be boiling off the planet -- or whatever. All of which means more K-ching K-ching K-ching for all those "wedge issue groups"
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Well, we have "in god we trust" on our money and other stuff too and I'm glad people are complaining.
A lot of the things don't directly impede a person's ability or freedom to worship, but they do amount to an endorsement of religion by the government.
How is having "In God we trust" on the currency endorsing a religion?
Originally posted by Melanerpes But the current healthcare insurance system is going bust.
Employers are having a harder and harder time covering their employees while trying to compete with companies overseas that don't have to do this -- and insurance companies have become very creative in finding ways to avoid paying for treatments that they supposedly cover.
The government ar ...[text shortened]... insurance company people also wield a great deal of power. Why don't you fear them as much?
I don't buy into the notion that to save us from the entilement of medicare we must adopt and even larger entitlement system. Of course, that will be the only option given to us but it does not make it the right option nor a better one.
Originally posted by sh76 Maybe, what he's proposing is:
1. right to free speech, regardless of whether what you say offends other people
2.right to free press, regardless of what the political opinions of the members of the press are
3.right to free worship, regardless of whether your worship offends other people
4.right to a trial by jury, as long as the interests of the ...[text shortened]... by a neutral magistrate or by an exception to the warrant requirement that justifies the search
Wow! Someone actually understands what I am saying. 😲
Originally posted by PsychoPawn It's endorsing religion over non-religion.
There are also religions that don't believe in a god - it's endorsing those religions that do believe in a god over those that don't.
🙄
Here is a thought, the US was founded by a group of men who consistantly used the term "God" and were in large measure monotheists. Now how about acknowledging that cultural heritage and celebrating it regardless of your religious phobia? It is a far cry of endorsement of ANY particular religion.
Here is a thought, the US was founded by a group of men who consistantly used the term "God" and were in large measure monotheists. Now how about acknowledging that cultural heritage and celebrating it regardless of your religious phobia? It is a far cry of endorsement of ANY particular religion.
Here's a thought...how about we abide by the constitution instead?
I have no problem with people having their religion and I have no religious phobia. Once again you are pulling things out of your anus.
I don't care if all the founding fathers were muslim, christian, monotheists or polytheists - to me that is actually irrelevant since they are all dead.
If they wanted an establishment of religion then they wouldn't have put the establishment clause into the constitution, would they?
Originally posted by whodey I just wondered how many knew that FDR came up with a Second Bill of Rights that was suppose to go hand in hand with the first bill of rights? Here is what he said,
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; of every farmer to ...[text shortened]... and unemployement; to a good education."
So who here agrees with the second bill of rights?
Those are Entitlement Rights. We can recognize them if we want but they are not inalienable. Calling them "Rights" is probably a poor idea.
Originally posted by whodey Here are the original rights granted to us by our Forfathers
1. Right to free speech
2. Right to free press
3. Right to free worship
4. Right to trial by jury
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizures.
Now if the progressives had been in charge, I think these would have looked a tad bit different. They would have gone something like this.
1 ...[text shortened]... and seizure. The courts will then later tell you exactly if the state was "unreasonable".
Those are some of the inalienable rights recognized by our forefathers. In addition is the Right to Pursue Happiness, the Right to Life, and the Right to Liberty.
A Second Bill of Rights
05 Aug '09 18:49
Back to Top