That depends upon several related side issues. If their fundamental theological beliefs involve forcing that theology upon others, then yes. There are people whose beliefs require them to follow the golden rule. There are people whose beliefs (not the religion) require them to exterminate anyone who holds different beliefs. Does one have more merit than the other? I believe it does. If someone holds religious beliefs that preclude adherence to our constitution and its first 14 amendments, then they have no place in our political system. I am all for equality, and I will maintain that the converse is also true: if your personal beliefs preclude the basic tenets of a particular religion, then you have no right to claim that religion. If a person feels justified murdering others to feel better about himself, he has no right to claim to be christian while bombing a clinic, no right to claim to be a jew while bombing palestinian settlements, no right to claim to be a muslim while bombing anyone he designates as an infidel.
What are the biggest problems in America right now
- Thread starter Dr. Dilznick
- Start date
We all vote our individual theology or lack of it. The problem comes when one group attempts to foster their theological beliefs on everyone else and leaves no room for disagrement or discourse by setting up the Congress and the Court system to only believe one way--whether the set up is ethical or not. On the other hand, if the majority vote for that group, the group assumes it has a mandate to legislate its beliefs on the majority. Our country is polarized, and no one group actually has a true mandate. That is why we must NOT become a theocracy but MUST keep political views and religious views as separate as is humanly possible.
Zora,
I am guilty of starting posts either late at night or after a crappy day and giving them a 'roid rage angle. I suppose we all do that in here from time to time. My apologies for coming across 180 degrees from where I otherwise wanted to go.
I agree with your thoughts that if only Christian symbols are displayed on government property, it does smack of gov't endorsement at some level of that faith. If others were also allowed may not be a boat strong enough to row to China in, but then again I'm only floating it as a possible way out of continual political and legal strife on the subject. Part of the basis of my thoughts on the matter invokes the recent discussions about whether NCAA teams could use Indian names/mascots and their ability to host tournaments and such. While the NCAA took its stand, making the claim that it was acting in deference to the wishes of Indian groups, I also heard two different polls that were (if you ave them together) about 85-15 in favor of letting schools use Indian nicknames - and these were polls taken of American Indian groups. Without going back and researching the issue, I also believe the Seminoles had given Fla State permission in the past to use their tribal name, w/o qualifications.
Translating that over to the religion arena, the question is how do people of other faiths feel when they see Christian symbols in the public square? I don't know. When battles like this are waged on tv, you usually only see one person versus a business/town/city, etc. How do the groups on the whole feel? It's harder to get to the bottom of that answer. I've never experienced what it is like to live in a country that is oriented in a different manner than the way I was brought up. "Easy", I'm sure, isn't one of the answers.
Majority rule with respect for the rights of the minority is obviously one of the things that sets America apart from many other nations throughout history. But like I said in my Friday post, if the standard you hold anything to is "one person" and that gets substituted for the word "minority", then we are seemingly endlessly in court and debating every possible issue. Certainly, that can't be viewed as a positive 100% of the time.
It doesn't seem to be in the nature of peoples from around the world to hide (simple expressions of) their faith, ours included. Rather than perpetually fighting that tendency, I just feel exploring understated ways in which people can publically show the tenets of their faith w/o fear of it being taken as any kind of endorsement of one religion over another would ultimately be the more productive route. Maybe it isn't possible, I don't know.
You don't get any takers to your challenge over GWB's fiscal conservativeness/or his claim to be reducing the size of government because it doesn't exist. He will sometimes talk a good game but at the end of the day has not delivered. Farm bill, road bill, Dept of Homeland Hacks, etc, etc. I'm a conservative and you can quote me on that if it does any good.
People answering "Christian" when they state what they like about Bush are a mix of misguided and sincere. Misguided if they think or hope that he will/should effect the kind of change that leads to our our name being the U.C.S.A. There is a sincerity, I think especially in older adults, that they admire leaders that they feel are in touch with their faith. One set of my grandparents voted for Carter, then came to dislike his policies, but always respected him and still do because of the perception they had of him that he's a man that takes his faith seriously. I don't think people like that mean any harm, it's just that they were brought up to respect that one area of a person. Just my 2 cents there. I'm sure there are many that are operating under the "misguided" banner, however.
If I wake up in the morning with the power, I would withdraw Harriet Miers as a nomination to the SC. There is definitely a background of achievement that she has that she should be proud of. Being a woman in what was then predominantly a man's profession no doubt makes her qualified for many things. I just don't think one of them is the highest court in the land. And, if Bush had nominated someone whose background demonstrated they had wrangled with constitutional issues, then the Republican/conservative base would not feel insulted by his bringing up her church-going habits, which should be irrelevant.
We may yet end up on a political ticket together. I'm for doing away with a lot of the excess that exists and passes for government these days, but with so many folks having their hands in the current system, better make sure the pitchfork is extra sharp if you're going to run them away and change the system.
Freddie: What you said is right, but when I heard the coach in question on the radio the other day, the extra bit he added to the story was that the school board superintendent made it clear (in the letter that went out to all faculty, coaches, support personnel) that he could not be even so much as present during any prayers or, if found in violation of that order, he would lose his job. If the coach stated the school board's position correctly, then he may have a workplace lawsuit issue to address there, but all I'm saying is that's how he said it on Thu? I think.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
BnD, we are really not too far apart, as I suspected. Where we differ is perhaps in your optimism over my pessimism over what we believe the general populace to be capable of seeing.
Again, I will underscore my sincere desire to get to be bottom of the issue on religion in politics- IT'S A HUGE FUCKING NO-NO! No, I DEFINITELY DO NOT want MORE symbols of different faiths hoisted into our government institutions, that's completely against what our forefathers set up for us. If you want to throw out the constitution to get your way, you can see why I'm having a problem. NO RELIGION HAS ANY BUSINESS IN GOVERNMENT. NONE AT ALL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Anyone who doesn't agree with this is free to start their own country, overthrow our government, or seek whatever remedy they choose (like baffling the nation with bullshit, which is what is being done currently). What they DO NOT get to do is to be taken with any degree of seriousness at all when they claim to be "doing the will of God". They are doing the will of SELF, which is scoffed at in the Bible. They are serving neither the documents of their religion nor the documents of our government. They need to shut the fuck up, and the rest of us need to put a stop to this insanity while we still have anything close to a credible government (already quite questionable) OR an insitution of religion of any faith in this country not tainted by political slime. The answer is not to add more fuel to the fire, it is to extinguish the fire at its' source and adhere to the rules- everyone the same.
What is happening now is that the fundamentalists are becomming a large lobbying force and are flexing their newfound muscles in the face of everyone else, unapologetically, and it is as Anti-Christian a behavior as anything I can imagine. Even if you agree with the doctrines, how can you agree with the methods? (Here I do not mean you personally, but anyone with a brain). This is bringing great shame upon Christianity, and as one who has enjoyed warmth, acceptance and willingness to share knowledge from within that particular framework, that makes me sad. See, I am not against Christians, certainly not against the teachings of Christ. I am against people getting the message wrong and profiteering off their false messages in the name of God. If anyone can't see that happening, shame on them. MY stance is strongly in favor of Christians- to respect a religion's importance, you must give it a good field to grow in. I hardly see our government as that field, it should be in our homes, hearths, hearts, and lives if it is to be anywhere. If LIVING a Christian life isn't a good enough place to exemplify your beliefs, I don't see where ramroding it in other people's faces will glorify God. Jesus agrees with me, see story about throwing the moneychangers OUT of the temple. When asked if Jesus felt the people should have to pay taxes to a corrupt government, he answered, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's". This is the only political comment I can find from him, clearly he is stating that religion does not govern politics- they are and must be completely separate. Show me ONE example of Jesus doing or saying ANYTHING that would lead one to believe he wanted political power for himself or the Church! Sorry, the neocons have gotten it grotesquely wrong!
Oh yeah, to be a Christian, try quoting from the NT- OT quotes are from Judaism, stupid! "Christianity" didn't happen before the birth of Christ! I get so effing sick of "Christians" quoting from the OT, clearly they have completely misunderstood their own religion. Why should I take them seriously when they haven't even bothered to discover what they're supposed to be representing or believing? I WON'T hold myself accountable to care more about their religion than they do themselves! Yes, this makes me very angry, and rightfully so when you think about it.
You want ot show glory to God? Pray, help your neighbor and apply your morals to YOURSELF, that you may be pure in the eyes of the Lord. If you think that judgement of others makes you holy yourself, you are in for a rude awakening, if the stories of the Bible have any truth to them at all!
On the other hand, if there is no God and those you call "heathens" have learned to find reasons to love each other while you have not, what pride could you ever take in your life? Was this not the ONLY commandment that Jesus himself gave us on his arrival here, that we should love our brothers as ourselves? If we can't even get that one little thing right, we are not worth the time and trouble he gave us. Even if one sees Jesus as a Rabbi/teacher, is that still not a valuable lesson from a man who never sought personal glory?
In the end, I say shut the fuck up and stop being so fucking stupid because I am just so frustrated that no one listens when I say thing more eloquently, but when I cuss at least people read it.
Again, I will underscore my sincere desire to get to be bottom of the issue on religion in politics- IT'S A HUGE FUCKING NO-NO! No, I DEFINITELY DO NOT want MORE symbols of different faiths hoisted into our government institutions, that's completely against what our forefathers set up for us. If you want to throw out the constitution to get your way, you can see why I'm having a problem. NO RELIGION HAS ANY BUSINESS IN GOVERNMENT. NONE AT ALL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Anyone who doesn't agree with this is free to start their own country, overthrow our government, or seek whatever remedy they choose (like baffling the nation with bullshit, which is what is being done currently). What they DO NOT get to do is to be taken with any degree of seriousness at all when they claim to be "doing the will of God". They are doing the will of SELF, which is scoffed at in the Bible. They are serving neither the documents of their religion nor the documents of our government. They need to shut the fuck up, and the rest of us need to put a stop to this insanity while we still have anything close to a credible government (already quite questionable) OR an insitution of religion of any faith in this country not tainted by political slime. The answer is not to add more fuel to the fire, it is to extinguish the fire at its' source and adhere to the rules- everyone the same.
What is happening now is that the fundamentalists are becomming a large lobbying force and are flexing their newfound muscles in the face of everyone else, unapologetically, and it is as Anti-Christian a behavior as anything I can imagine. Even if you agree with the doctrines, how can you agree with the methods? (Here I do not mean you personally, but anyone with a brain). This is bringing great shame upon Christianity, and as one who has enjoyed warmth, acceptance and willingness to share knowledge from within that particular framework, that makes me sad. See, I am not against Christians, certainly not against the teachings of Christ. I am against people getting the message wrong and profiteering off their false messages in the name of God. If anyone can't see that happening, shame on them. MY stance is strongly in favor of Christians- to respect a religion's importance, you must give it a good field to grow in. I hardly see our government as that field, it should be in our homes, hearths, hearts, and lives if it is to be anywhere. If LIVING a Christian life isn't a good enough place to exemplify your beliefs, I don't see where ramroding it in other people's faces will glorify God. Jesus agrees with me, see story about throwing the moneychangers OUT of the temple. When asked if Jesus felt the people should have to pay taxes to a corrupt government, he answered, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's". This is the only political comment I can find from him, clearly he is stating that religion does not govern politics- they are and must be completely separate. Show me ONE example of Jesus doing or saying ANYTHING that would lead one to believe he wanted political power for himself or the Church! Sorry, the neocons have gotten it grotesquely wrong!
Oh yeah, to be a Christian, try quoting from the NT- OT quotes are from Judaism, stupid! "Christianity" didn't happen before the birth of Christ! I get so effing sick of "Christians" quoting from the OT, clearly they have completely misunderstood their own religion. Why should I take them seriously when they haven't even bothered to discover what they're supposed to be representing or believing? I WON'T hold myself accountable to care more about their religion than they do themselves! Yes, this makes me very angry, and rightfully so when you think about it.
You want ot show glory to God? Pray, help your neighbor and apply your morals to YOURSELF, that you may be pure in the eyes of the Lord. If you think that judgement of others makes you holy yourself, you are in for a rude awakening, if the stories of the Bible have any truth to them at all!
On the other hand, if there is no God and those you call "heathens" have learned to find reasons to love each other while you have not, what pride could you ever take in your life? Was this not the ONLY commandment that Jesus himself gave us on his arrival here, that we should love our brothers as ourselves? If we can't even get that one little thing right, we are not worth the time and trouble he gave us. Even if one sees Jesus as a Rabbi/teacher, is that still not a valuable lesson from a man who never sought personal glory?
In the end, I say shut the fuck up and stop being so fucking stupid because I am just so frustrated that no one listens when I say thing more eloquently, but when I cuss at least people read it.
Zora,
I don't know what happened about half way through your post/reply, but all of the sudden it's like a "wing-nut" sent you a PM and you got all worked up. I wasn't sending you any quotes from the old or new testament, so..? If you were watching the Cardinals-Astros game and got upset over how badly the Cards played, then I understand
I don't have any problem with you saying what you want to say, Zora. I just think (even if I disagree with you) that you are more than eloquent enough to make your various points without feeling you have to curse to be heard. I ain't so genteel that a few curse words make me go home and cry to momma. In any event, Mr. Mark posts few rules here and we're all free to talk anyway we want.
I'm not in argument mode with you on this point. I don't want a "Hall of Religious Diversity" in each and every gov't building, Christian or otherwise. Maybe my words and internal point of view aren't in synch. You and I both take deep breaths and begin writing and I sometimes get on point C and forget to check out how I worded point A before I hit "post". To be clear, I don't want entire court yards full of 35 diff religious displays, artifacts, etc., period. Yes, the traditionalist in me that falls for sentiment doesn't have a problem with some of it, but the constitutionalist inside me knows you can't do it and be fair. Sometimes the senti-traditionalist is who writes my points of view.
Unfortunately, given that the forces you would attribute more with me are pushing hard for it, and the forces that oppose it are dead-set against it, what I see is a mixed bag of success for both sides down the road. The right and left have enough money to fight ahead, rightly or wrongly, and inflict enough misery on us all over the issue (and variations of it) as right vs wrong won't be the standard of decision making...I share what you called your pessimistic viewpoint on certain matters on THAT one for sure.
Me saying what I did earlier was just that, at that one time of the year when everyone goes display-happy (I personally don't care for them, having fallen about 6 feet off a ladder last winter hanging lights kind of biased me) that as a symbol of truce maybe all sides that wanted to participate could put up something small and respectful that showed what they hold near and dear at their holiest seasons if and only if that proved to be the only way to end the war on the subject. Maybe not the ideal solution by anyone's measure, but a way to avoid decades more acrimony over this issue??? I don't know...
I don't know what happened about half way through your post/reply, but all of the sudden it's like a "wing-nut" sent you a PM and you got all worked up. I wasn't sending you any quotes from the old or new testament, so..? If you were watching the Cardinals-Astros game and got upset over how badly the Cards played, then I understand
I don't have any problem with you saying what you want to say, Zora. I just think (even if I disagree with you) that you are more than eloquent enough to make your various points without feeling you have to curse to be heard. I ain't so genteel that a few curse words make me go home and cry to momma. In any event, Mr. Mark posts few rules here and we're all free to talk anyway we want.
I'm not in argument mode with you on this point. I don't want a "Hall of Religious Diversity" in each and every gov't building, Christian or otherwise. Maybe my words and internal point of view aren't in synch. You and I both take deep breaths and begin writing and I sometimes get on point C and forget to check out how I worded point A before I hit "post". To be clear, I don't want entire court yards full of 35 diff religious displays, artifacts, etc., period. Yes, the traditionalist in me that falls for sentiment doesn't have a problem with some of it, but the constitutionalist inside me knows you can't do it and be fair. Sometimes the senti-traditionalist is who writes my points of view.
Unfortunately, given that the forces you would attribute more with me are pushing hard for it, and the forces that oppose it are dead-set against it, what I see is a mixed bag of success for both sides down the road. The right and left have enough money to fight ahead, rightly or wrongly, and inflict enough misery on us all over the issue (and variations of it) as right vs wrong won't be the standard of decision making...I share what you called your pessimistic viewpoint on certain matters on THAT one for sure.
Me saying what I did earlier was just that, at that one time of the year when everyone goes display-happy (I personally don't care for them, having fallen about 6 feet off a ladder last winter hanging lights kind of biased me) that as a symbol of truce maybe all sides that wanted to participate could put up something small and respectful that showed what they hold near and dear at their holiest seasons if and only if that proved to be the only way to end the war on the subject. Maybe not the ideal solution by anyone's measure, but a way to avoid decades more acrimony over this issue??? I don't know...
madame_zora
Sexy Member
BnD, about halfway through the post I stopped addressing you personally and was referring to what I dislike about religion in government. If I didn't make that clear enough, I apologise. I don't hold you personally accountable for what the fundamentalist movement is doing, I was explaining what I find revolting about it.
So many times I hear people saying "unchristian" any time someone objects to what our government is doing, and I just want to make it abundantly clear to all what my stance is and what my objections really are. I am actually enjoying talking with you in what I consider a relatively calm manner.
Yes, when you suggested that any religion should be able to put symbols up alongside the Christian ones, it got me queasy. I understand the "traditionalist" feelings you speak of, but those "traditions" are very exclusionary to those who don't share that particular faith. Just because it's been going on for a long time doesn't mean we can't do better, you know? We've made social strides in how we treat other minorities like women and blacks, protecting the rights of non-Christians should be a valid stance too. Christians don't have any reason to feel like they are "taking a hit" just because they are being asked to back off from government property! I don't care what religious display is set out by the grocery or hardware store, they are free to express their personal religious views in the businesses they own and operate as far as I am concerned. What they are NOT free to do is to imtimidate employees of any other faith or limit their religious freedoms to worship or not as they see fit.
My concern about religious symbolism is limited to governemt property. I staunchly oppose ANY of it posing as "tradition" when the constitution itself clearly outlines the need for it's absence. The fact that it has crept in does not make it okay, and I think that explains why we are even where we are, having this discussion.
Summation, I am not against religion, religious symbolism or God himself. I just want it out of our government, completely! I expect that if our elected officials belong to a faith, they will let their personal beliefs remain personal as they make decisions for the general populace based on what is good for the general populace, NOT on what view their church holds.
Also, BnD, I don't attribute to you the negative feelings I have about fundies, as you have said clearly that you do not believe in the things they are doing in government that I object to. I have no reason not to believe you. I was explaining why I curse and scream, and in order to do that I had to show what I'm mad about. Thanks for the compliment on my language ability, I really do appreciate it. Once again, I doubt the ability of my fellow Americans to hear me otherwise. Sadly, even here it has often proven to be true. We don't need more wishy-washy moderates with their hands in their pockets looking apologetic for having ideas. What we need in politics is someone with enough of a backbone to start pronouncing loudly that we are too far off track, and without some serious and swift readjustment, we are in danger of losing the very things about our country we hold dear. At the risk of doing a no-no, would you think it was okay for the people of Germany to be rude to the supporters of Hitler? Would it be okay if they cussed and said "fuck this, it's GOT to stop NOW!"?
Sometimes, politeness is just uncalled for, and that's how I feel now.
To all churches and religious leaders- shut up about politics or pay taxes. Period. Either/or, no more of this bullshit about turning a blind eye to this nonsense while they retain their tax-exempt status. That will solve the problem quickly. On the other hand, taxing the churches alone could rescue us from the deficit, so either way they choose, it would benefit the people. Give them a choice, then MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!
So many times I hear people saying "unchristian" any time someone objects to what our government is doing, and I just want to make it abundantly clear to all what my stance is and what my objections really are. I am actually enjoying talking with you in what I consider a relatively calm manner.
Yes, when you suggested that any religion should be able to put symbols up alongside the Christian ones, it got me queasy. I understand the "traditionalist" feelings you speak of, but those "traditions" are very exclusionary to those who don't share that particular faith. Just because it's been going on for a long time doesn't mean we can't do better, you know? We've made social strides in how we treat other minorities like women and blacks, protecting the rights of non-Christians should be a valid stance too. Christians don't have any reason to feel like they are "taking a hit" just because they are being asked to back off from government property! I don't care what religious display is set out by the grocery or hardware store, they are free to express their personal religious views in the businesses they own and operate as far as I am concerned. What they are NOT free to do is to imtimidate employees of any other faith or limit their religious freedoms to worship or not as they see fit.
My concern about religious symbolism is limited to governemt property. I staunchly oppose ANY of it posing as "tradition" when the constitution itself clearly outlines the need for it's absence. The fact that it has crept in does not make it okay, and I think that explains why we are even where we are, having this discussion.
Summation, I am not against religion, religious symbolism or God himself. I just want it out of our government, completely! I expect that if our elected officials belong to a faith, they will let their personal beliefs remain personal as they make decisions for the general populace based on what is good for the general populace, NOT on what view their church holds.
Also, BnD, I don't attribute to you the negative feelings I have about fundies, as you have said clearly that you do not believe in the things they are doing in government that I object to. I have no reason not to believe you. I was explaining why I curse and scream, and in order to do that I had to show what I'm mad about. Thanks for the compliment on my language ability, I really do appreciate it. Once again, I doubt the ability of my fellow Americans to hear me otherwise. Sadly, even here it has often proven to be true. We don't need more wishy-washy moderates with their hands in their pockets looking apologetic for having ideas. What we need in politics is someone with enough of a backbone to start pronouncing loudly that we are too far off track, and without some serious and swift readjustment, we are in danger of losing the very things about our country we hold dear. At the risk of doing a no-no, would you think it was okay for the people of Germany to be rude to the supporters of Hitler? Would it be okay if they cussed and said "fuck this, it's GOT to stop NOW!"?
Sometimes, politeness is just uncalled for, and that's how I feel now.
To all churches and religious leaders- shut up about politics or pay taxes. Period. Either/or, no more of this bullshit about turning a blind eye to this nonsense while they retain their tax-exempt status. That will solve the problem quickly. On the other hand, taxing the churches alone could rescue us from the deficit, so either way they choose, it would benefit the people. Give them a choice, then MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!
Well, call me diluded and/or ignorant then. B/C this former ranch girl found them far easier to use than rocks when hunting for deer or rabbits. But then that probably makes me some buck-tooth backwoods freak now b/c I like to hunt.
Oh, and I do find it a bit comforting to have in my house late at night when my husband is away on business in case a perpetrator happens to come into my home. But oh wait, I live in New York. That doesn't happen here or probably not anywhere in the US anymore.
And just to clarify myself, I don't think as "maim and kill" meaning the same and "hunt" or "protect" which is the distinction that I am trying to make.
[post=351783]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Getting away from religion again for a minute and back onto guns
I know it's difficult for Americans to imagine gun ownership being generally illegal because you've grown up with a different system but I'd like to put the European arguement to you for a minute
First of all, with the hunting example, people who have a legitimate use for a gun can apply for a licence so while you were growing up your Mum/Dad would have been allowed one for hunting so long as it was suitable for the purpose (i.e. you wouldn't be allowed a semi-automatic for hunting Rabbits)
Secondly, and this is why we don't allow home owners to have guns;
Most people who break into a house want to steal things, they don't want to kill because if they got caught they would be up on a murder charge. If you distrurbed them they would try and get away as fast as possible, that way the worst that'll happen is you lose some of your stuff.
However, if that burgler thought that you were likely to have a gun then they also would carry a gun as self defence and you could end up being killed
In Europe gun crime is still very low and the amount of criminals carrying guns is far lower than in America. This is mainly due to the fact that the advantage of carrying a gun to a criminal here is almost non existant compaired to the life in jail that they would get if caught carrying/owning one
I think it would be good for America to ban guns but now they are so wide spread throughout your country it would be a nightmare trying to re-claim them all again
The fact that Harry Reid recommended her is odd. I mean, Reid is pro-life. That is worth noting. They might be operating on some covert shit. But I'd just prefer a reliable justice with a solid record that we could be certain of. The more I think about it the more I think Bush (or Rove or whoever) knows something I don't.
Oh, I'm sure there is a LOT that the public is not being told about. IMHO, the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is application of the US Constitution - deciding whether or not cases moving up through the appellate process are following due process and whether or not those cases hold up to Constitutional scrutiny.
There seems to be a tendency, across party lines, in House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and especially in the Bush Administration, to weaken and dismantle the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights and other amendments reserving individual rights and restricting the powers of the government. "The Terrorist Formerly Known As Jose Padilla" is a prime example. The man is and has always been a US citizen, born in this country. Regardless of what he has done or is suspected to have done, and regardless of the designation of "enemy combatant", it is a flagrant violation of several constitutional amendments to hold him indefinitely, without charges, without counsel, and completely incommunicado.
All the bush administration has to do is squeak "NATIONAL SECURITY! NATIONAL SECURITY!" and those who have been entrusted to protect the people (and, incidentally, SWORN UNDER OATH to uphold the Constitution) just roll over and play dead. Ignoring due process when it is politically expedient is a dangerous road to take. I feel fairly certain that is the reason that our current Chief Justice was appointed to that position, and I have a sneaking suspicion that may be the reason Ms Miers has been nominated - they will "interpret" the constitution to suit a political agenda, rather than to protect the checks and balances.
There are numerous big problems in our country right now, the ones you outlined not the least of them. But with an administration that sees no ethical problems with circumventing constitutional guarantees, I don't think that "we the people" have a snowball's chance...
I could care less about my stuff being stolen (well, to an extent) but it's being raped that I would love to avoid and unfortunately, it happens too often here.
I understand your case against certain weapons for hunting, and I agree that most guns are overkill for that purpose.
Unfortunately, our nation must not be as great as yours though. I doubt that if we had your kind of system put in place that our crime rate would be as low as yours. The US is huge and with a large diversity of people.
Prohibition (when they outlawed liquor here in the US many years ago) should be a good example of what would happen if we outlaw guns, those that really want it/them will still get it/them and those that are the "law abiding citizens" will be left without. And I prefer to have just as many "law abiding citizens" with guns than those that aren't.
And remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.
[/b][/quote]
The above post was brought to you by JonB, LPSG's poster boy for political correctness.
London is actually the most ethnically diverse city in the world, we have every nation in the world living here (according to the adverts), Not one minority group that lives in the US is not represented here but for some reason they are not as violent over here.
Maybe it's a problem with your country and not the minority?
And by that I don't just mean George Bush, I mean the whole of America with your fake political correctness and banging on all the time about protecting your rights while you take rights away from others
:shrug: I stand corrected. I always thought the phrase was
"And remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people."
<!--QuoteBegin-Dorset@Oct 18 2005, 05:18 AM
Maybe it's a problem with your country and not the minority?
And by that I don't just mean George Bush, I mean the whole of America with your fake political correctness and banging on all the time about protecting your rights while you take rights away from others
[post=352829]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Hear, Hear! I could not agree more about the "fake political 'correctness'" and the "I have rights but you do not" attitude. I am constantly quoting our Constitution, and I often catch hell about it. But the bottom line is, although we have rights guaranteed in that document, the "powers that be" only support the Constitution when they think they have something to gain, and do not even flinch in ignoring constitutional rights of others, if that also leads to personal gain.
:shrug: I stand corrected. I always thought the phrase was
"And remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people."
[/b][/quote]
Close enough.
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-GunsDontKill.gif
London is actually the most ethnically diverse city in the world, we have every nation in the world living here (according to the adverts), Not one minority group that lives in the US is not represented here but for some reason they are not as violent over here.
Maybe it's a problem with your country and not the minority?
[/b][/quote]
You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about diversity as in race or ethnicity. I was talking about beliefs, and the way people were raised, as well as income levels.
Granted, I realize that poor people live all over the world as well as people that think the only way they can get by in life is with crime, but I'm saying that we have a larger # of these people than you do. The overall population in the UK is 60,441,457 and in the US it is 295,734,134. Which group of people do you think is easier to control? Perhaps it's a poor argument on my part, but I do think that is has a little something to do with it.
Fair enough, I agree to a point about the diversity in beliefs (although you don't allow radical Muslim clerics and we do). However it's worth noting that the population of China is 1,306,313,812 and they also have a far lower crime rate
I think the only reasonable conclusion is to blame MTV and rap music for the whole of America's social decline :bigsmile:
B_HappyHammer1977
Experimental Member
Just to add a little more in to the melting pot...
It wasn't that long ago that the constitution gave civil right to all, exept anyone owned by whites. If this can be changed, why not others?
Going back to the debate on guns and hunting and protecting your loved ones; if you have a gun for target sports (alive or paper! you will, by law have your gun securely locked up in a safe and unaccessable place. Indeed, people who take hunting seriously would never use a gun for anything other than it's sporting use.
Having guns in homes is of course the prime reason a would be burglar would carry a gun into a house...he's already committing a crime he'd rather get away with, he's not likely to put his hands up for the sake of morality now, is he!?
Point is, over here, if you have a fight, you have a good ol' punch up. You wake up with a black eye and a bruised ego. It's pretty hard to wake up from a bullet in the head.
It wasn't that long ago that the constitution gave civil right to all, exept anyone owned by whites. If this can be changed, why not others?
Going back to the debate on guns and hunting and protecting your loved ones; if you have a gun for target sports (alive or paper!
you will, by law have your gun securely locked up in a safe and unaccessable place. Indeed, people who take hunting seriously would never use a gun for anything other than it's sporting use.Having guns in homes is of course the prime reason a would be burglar would carry a gun into a house...he's already committing a crime he'd rather get away with, he's not likely to put his hands up for the sake of morality now, is he!?
Point is, over here, if you have a fight, you have a good ol' punch up. You wake up with a black eye and a bruised ego. It's pretty hard to wake up from a bullet in the head.