I accept your examples, but disagree that things are so skewed as you (perhaps selectively) perceive them. If we're picking extreme examples of idiots, how about socially conservative Fred Phelps: then I can point out, "I don't see any liberals claiming that our troops deserve to die because of [insert wedge issue here]!" That's a totally absurd example, though, because 99% of conservatives are rational people who think Phelps is a nutcase. Likewise, 99% of liberals think Jesse Jackson is nothing but a talking head.
Picking examples, we can always find ones that make the "other side" look bad. It's especially easy for me, because both "sides" look equally bad to me. You obviously disagree, which is your right in a free society, but I personally remain totally unconvinced of your assertions.
|
Both of the major parties are a disgrace these days. It's tough to take these congressional republicans seriously in their talks about fiscal responsibility now, when for the last 8 years they've been at the front of the feed line for their handout from the Bush admin.
Most people don't know this, but government spending increased TWICE AS FAST under Bush as it did under "tax and spend liberal" Bill Clinton. Apparently, Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" is just like "tax and spend liberalism", except that instead of taxes, we just get debt... which is like taxes with interest. Gee thanks!
By all outward appearances though, Obama looks set to break even THOSE records. We're spending money we don't have to save businesses that deserve to fail. Failure is an important and healthy part of capitalism and it needs to be allowed, no matter HOW BIG those companies are. GM has been following a failed business model for years, and it's time for them to go bankrupt and reorganize. If they can go back to making cars after that, great. If not, then they'll step aside and somebody with a clue can take that market share. Chrysler too.
Our Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a WHOLE lot better than the mess we have now. The only answer left is that it's time to vote Libertarian! We can either return to a smaller, more limited, constitutional government by choice, or force ourselves there through bankruptcy. Which would YOU prefer?
how about socially conservative Fred Phelps:
Fred Phelps is a democrat. LOL
What he's registered as, or calls himself, is irrelevant. The only issue he cares about is an anti-gay agenda, which is not what you'd call "liberal."
BTW, Arlen Specter is a Republican! LOL.
It's tough to take these congressional republicans seriously in their talks about fiscal responsibility now, when for the last 8 years they've been at the front of the feed line for their handout from the Bush admin.
Is this true for all congressional republicans or only those that were present during the previous administration. I mean if someone just got elected for the first time in 2008 (started in 2009), it doesn't seem very rational to blame them for someone else's voting record. Of course we are talking about politics so rationality may have nothing to do with it.
P.S. wasn't the Dems in charge of the legislature for the last 2 years? If during that time they voted for the Bush budgets, aren't they at least as much to blame?
Fred Phelps is a democrat. LOLWhat he's registered as, or calls himself, is irrelevant. The only issue he cares about is an anti-gay agenda, which is not what you'd call "liberal."
BTW, Arlen Specter is a Republican! LOL.
So to be "liberal" you have to be "pro-gay". Any other issue you support has no relevance?
If during that time they voted for the Bush budgets, aren't they at least as much to blame?
YES! EVERYONE is to blame! Neither party gets a free pass!
So to be "liberal" you have to be "pro-gay". Any other issue you support has no relevance?
Phelps HAS no other issues, just that one.
So to be "liberal" you have to be "pro-gay". Any other issue you support has no relevance?Phelps HAS no other issues, just that one.
Really?
"He is a disbarred lawyer, founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm and previous candidate for political office and was a Civil Rights activist in Kansas and participated in such cases as Brown v. Board of Education."
No other issues? So Brown v. Board of education was a totally meaningless case? Or was this Brown Packing v. Board of Spanking or something?
BTW, Arlen Specter is a Republican! LOL.Not for long.
Well not an elected one at any rate.
No other issues? So Brown v. Board of education was a totally meaningless case? Or was this Brown Packing v. Board of Spanking or something?
"Has" =/= "Had."
Anyway, I'm certain you understand my point exactly, but just choose to dwell on the least important part of it for the sake of arguing. Don't like Phelps as an example? Pick someone else with a conservative agenda that is, by just about any standard, unreasonable and hate-filled; there are plenty more. If you want to look for one iota of "non-conservative" in them ("Ronald Reagan was a Liberal! He owned a blue jacket, but not a red one!!!") to get them "off the hook," then also hold the liberal goofball examples cited to the same standard.
Or don't; it makes no difference. If people choose cherry-pick examples to convince themselves that their "team" are the "good guys" and that everyone who isn't a member is automatically a "bad guy" on the "other team," certainly nothing I can say will stop them.
No other issues? So Brown v. Board of education was a totally meaningless case? Or was this Brown Packing v. Board of Spanking or something?"Has" =/= "Had"
Anyway, I'm certain you understand my point exactly, but just choose to dwell on the least important part of it for the sake of arguing. Don't like Phelps as an example? Pick someone else with a conservative agenda that is, by just about any standard, unreasonable and hate-filled; there are plenty more. If you want to look for one iota of "non-conservative" in them ("Ronald Reagan was a Liberal! He owned a blue jacket, but not a red one!!!"), then also hold the liberal goofball examples cited to the same standard.
All I'm saying is that don't go shoving wacked out democrats onto republicans. Being religious+anti-gay+white does not automatically equal being a republican, though certainly there are republicans that fit that.
Let me get this straight...now we're fighting about which side is *more* biased?
Please. Both sides have an equal dose of asshattery. I'm tired of linking to the study that concluded that the more biased one perceives the media, the more skewed one's own viewpoint turns out to be. No one ever responds, because they don't like the implications, but there it is.
Quite a lot of these people aren't interested in discussion or compromise. Limbaugh wants to skewer people and vent his anger at the expense of others. He isn't interested in fixing anything; he's interested in ratings. And I'm sure there are any number of liberals who are no different.
One of the reasons I'm liberal is that I perceive a fundamental, intractable paradox in conservativsm (at least, what seems to pass for conservatism these days), which is: How does it make sense that government should stay out of people's lives, *except* when we're talking about marriage, or sexual orientation, or a host of other social issues? If you're going to stay out of people's lives, STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! Getting in bed with the religous fundamentalists is probably one of the worst mistakes the GOP has ever made.
All I'm saying is that don't go shoving wacked out democrats onto republicans. Being religious+anti-gay+white does not automatically equal being a republican, though certainly there are republicans that fit that.
Never said he was a republican; I said he has a socially conservative agenda. And, like I said, pick another whack job if you don't like that one.
P.S. I myself was a republican until they abandoned fiscal conservatism in favor of social issues.
|
|
Is this true for all congressional republicans or only those that were present during the previous administration. I mean if someone just got elected for the first time in 2008 (started in 2009), it doesn't seem very rational to blame them for someone else's voting record. Of course we are talking about politics so rationality may have nothing to do with it.
Completely fair point. To be totally fair, you have to go by individual voting record, for example I think Ron Paul still has a pretty clean record. I was making a generalization, and you're right to call me on it for further clarification.
I would also submit, however, two other points. 1) There are VERY few freshman republicans this year. I don't know if you noticed, but they got their butt's kicked in the last election. 2)The new Congress has had a few landmark spending bills through already - those could certainly be used as an early way to pass judgement too. In my book, if you voted for bailouts and stimulus, you're guilty.
P.S. wasn't the Dems in charge of the legislature for the last 2 years? If during that time they voted for the Bush budgets, aren't they at least as much to blame?
Sure they are. If my post wasn't clear on that point, my apologies. I think my argument was that BOTH of the main parties are broken. The reason I singled out the Republicans in Congress, was that they are now the ones yelling the loudest about all the runaway spending. Well, where were they 8 years ago?
The point boils down to this: The GOP had control of both houses of congress AND the white house for 6 years. Did we have fiscal conservatism? Did we have spending restraint? Were we paying down debt? If the answer is no, (hint: it is) you have to think all their talk and posturing now is nothing more than just that - talk and posturing.
Those of us who REALLY believe in smaller government and fiscal conservatism are NOT going to find it in the Republican Party, at least not the mainstream of it. Did you see how Ron Paul got treated by his own party because he dared espouse some of these philosophies?
If you are really a fiscal conservative, you need to look elsewhere. For me, that's the Libertarian Party. Your mileage may vary.
Let me get this straight...now we're fighting about which side is *more* biased?
No; I'm arguing that both "sides" are equally bad; one "side" is arguing against that viewpoint. (Sides in quotes because I don't see sides so much as a spectrum, with most people increasingly moving further away from the center).
If people choose cherry-pick examples to convince themselves that their "team" are the "good guys" and that everyone who isn't a member is automatically a "bad guy" on the "other team," certainly nothing I can say will stop them.
And that is it, in a nutshell. Pay attention, people. Or don't, because demonizing the other side has been so productive so far...
Let me get this straight...now we're fighting about which side is *more* biased?No; I'm arguing that both sides are equally bad; one "side" is arguing against that viewpoint.
My apologies...I guess it didn't come across that way, but I agree with you. Despite being a liberal, I have no illusions about "my side" being the army of virtue (except for me, of course). :)
Did you see how Ron Paul got treated by his own party because he dared espouse some of these philosophies?
My impressions were that he just came across as a bit of a nut-job, much like Dennis Kucinich did for the Dems. It was just hard to take either of them very serious. Maybe that is because they looked weird and talked weird, and maybe that means alot of people are superficial, but as Obama showed, performance is no substitute for presentation.
The point boils down to this: The GOP had control of both houses of congress AND the white house for 6 years. Did we have fiscal conservatism? Did we have spending restraint? Were we paying down debt? If the answer is no, (hint: it is) you have to think all their talk and posturing now is nothing more than just that - talk and posturing.
Those of us who REALLY believe in smaller government and fiscal conservatism are NOT going to find it in the Republican Party, at least not the mainstream of it. Did you see how Ron Paul got treated by his own party because he dared espouse some of these philosophies?
If you are really a fiscal conservative, you need to look elsewhere. For me, that's the Libertarian Party. Your mileage may vary.
Thank you. I can respect fiscal conservatism. I don't quite buy into trickle-down, but I do support the need for a balanced budget 100%. I don't see either party's mainstream saying what needs to be said (probably because it is political suicide).
|
|
Thank you. I can respect fiscal conservatism. I don't quite buy into trickle-down, but I do support the need for a balanced budget 100%. I don't see either party's mainstream saying what needs to be said (probably because it is political suicide).
While it wasn't called "trickle down" at the time, that's exactly what built this country to being what it was, from about 1781-1933...
But that's a whole other argument for a different day. At least we can agree on the "fiscal conservatism" part, and call it a day. :)
|
|
My impressions were that he just came across as a bit of a nut-job, much like Dennis Kucinich did for the Dems. It was just hard to take either of them very serious. Maybe that is because they looked weird and talked weird, and maybe that means alot of people are superficial, but as Obama showed, performance is no substitute for presentation.
Or maybe it's because that's exactly how the mainstream media INTENDED for them to come across. They have an interest in maintaining the status quo too. So they asked Qs that intentionally marginalized them.
You were supposed to think Ron Paul was a nut job. That's why they would ask Q's like "you're the only GOP candidate who wants to get our of Iraq. Are you running for the wrong party's nomination?" Never mind that he's the most conservative guy on the stage, or that he's been a Republican congressman for 10 terms. Based on that one issue, he's obviously in the wrong party!
Without trying to sound like too much of a conspiracy nut, the media does a lot of work to pre-pick candidates before the race even begins. Remember all the talk about Giuliani being a front runner and getting lots of time and press? Once the votes were cast, where did he do well? (nowhere). But he got tons of free press and free time in the news.
Whenever Ron Paul was mentioned (which was rarely) it was always with the words "long shot" or some such attached to his name. Fact is Paul made a LOT more money and got a LOT more votes than Giuliani did in the primaries, all over the country, and including places where Giuliani outspent Paul heavily, like in Florida. You'd have NEVER known that just watching CNN.
Remember that the major news organizations in this country are owned by a select group of a very few people, and those people have agendas too.
And yes, you're right, it is a sad fact that in our 30 second soundbyte culture, style often wins out over substance. And that's on us, not the media. But it would help if the substance were at least allowed something approaching equal time and a pretention of fairness in the debates, so the people could decide for themselves (WHAT? You mean like a Democracy?!)
|
|
One of the reasons I'm liberal is that I perceive a fundamental, intractable paradox in conservativsm (at least, what seems to pass for conservatism these days), which is: How does it make sense that government should stay out of people's lives, *except* when we're talking about marriage, or sexual orientation, or a host of other social issues? If you're going to stay out of people's lives, STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! Getting in bed with the religous fundamentalists is probably one of the worst mistakes the GOP has ever made.
See? You should be a Libertarian too! :)
One of the reasons I'm liberal is that I perceive a fundamental, intractable paradox in conservativsm (at least, what seems to pass for conservatism these days), which is: How does it make sense that government should stay out of people's lives, *except* when we're talking about marriage, or sexual orientation, or a host of other social issues? If you're going to stay out of people's lives, STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! Getting in bed with the religous fundamentalists is probably one of the worst mistakes the GOP has ever made.
Of course the same could be said about paradoxes in "liberalism" as well.
In the end, it just matters which paradoxes you are willing to live with.
They wouldn't let me into any of the rallies because I don't own a gun.* ;-)
* Not intended to be taken as anti-gun ownership statement. Though the writer does not own a gun, he doesn't want to take your gun(s), either from your cold, dead hands, or otherwise. To each his own.
One of the reasons I'm liberal is that I perceive a fundamental, intractable paradox in conservativsm (at least, what seems to pass for conservatism these days), which is: How does it make sense that government should stay out of people's lives, *except* when we're talking about marriage, or sexual orientation, or a host of other social issues? If you're going to stay out of people's lives, STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! Getting in bed with the religous fundamentalists is probably one of the worst mistakes the GOP has ever made.Of course the same could be said about paradoxes in "liberalism" as well.
In the end, it just matters which paradoxes you are willing to live with.
No doubt. I'd love to hear what you believe those paradoxes are; you may point out something I've not thought of.
|
One of the reasons I'm liberal is that I perceive a fundamental, intractable paradox in conservativsm (at least, what seems to pass for conservatism these days), which is: How does it make sense that government should stay out of people's lives, *except* when we're talking about marriage, or sexual orientation, or a host of other social issues? If you're going to stay out of people's lives, STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! Getting in bed with the religous fundamentalists is probably one of the worst mistakes the GOP has ever made.Of course the same could be said about paradoxes in "liberalism" as well.
In the end, it just matters which paradoxes you are willing to live with.
No doubt. I'd love to hear what you believe those paradoxes are; you may point out something I've not thought of.
The key one is almost certainly tolerance, unless you say something they disagree with.
While it wasn't called "trickle down" at the time, that's exactly what built this country to being what it was, from about 1781-1933...But that's a whole other argument for a different day. At least we can agree on the "fiscal conservatism" part, and call it a day. :)
Thank you for not opening that can of worms.
And for the record, I don't believe conservatives are heartless, any more than I believe liberals are brainless. Like most things, I think the answer lies in compromise. Unfortunately, it seems that compromise has become a sign of weakness, and elements on both sides appear ready to run us into an iceberg as long as they look good doing it.
The President needs to slash spending and send a balanced 2010 budget to Congress, one that faces the reality that we've been living beyond our means and puts us on the (very painful) course to responsiblity. I don't care if it is politically viable...grow a pair.
Unfortunately, neither major party shows any sign of doing this...
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2217732/posts
I just cant take a party that has members that say this seriously
Okay that's an aweful aweful place (that specific topic or forum whatever) and the things said there are incredibly stupid and aweful.
But have you ever heard some of the stupid and aweful things that people in PETA have said, left wing nutjob PETA? I mean it's just as bad, there are whackjobs on both sides.
|
|
See? You should be a Libertarian too! :)
They wouldn't let me into any of the rallies because I don't own a gun.* ;-)
* Not intended to be taken as anti-gun ownership statement. Though the writer does not own a gun, he doesn't want to take your gun(s), either from your cold, dead hands, or otherwise. To each his own.
Libertarians don't give a crap whether you own a gun or not.
The key one is almost certainly tolerance, unless you say something they disagree with.
Then those people are hypocrites. Though I suspect we might disagree on what constitutes "tolerating" something. For example, I'm against organized prayer in schools; to whom would we pray? We can't possibly pray to ever deity in the modern world...do we do the top 3? Top 5? Yours? Mine? On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't support persecuting people of any faith (or none).
I admit I don't understand the siege mentality that seems to be common among fundamentalists...we shouldn't give creationism equal time because there isn't any evidence, not because we hate creationists and want to supress their beliefs. Believe what you want...just don't confuse it with science. If you want to have a humanities class about it, knock yourself out.
To me it the difference between "tolerance" and "advocacy."
Libertarians don't give a crap whether you own a gun or not.See? You should be a Libertarian too! :)They wouldn't let me into any of the rallies because I don't own a gun.* ;-)
* Not intended to be taken as anti-gun ownership statement. Though the writer does not own a gun, he doesn't want to take your gun(s), either from your cold, dead hands, or otherwise. To each his own.
It was a joke..hence the ;-).
|
|
The key one is almost certainly tolerance, unless you say something they disagree with.Then those people are hypocrites. Though I suspect we might disagree on what constitutes "tolerating" something. For example, I'm against organized prayer in schools; to whom would we pray? We can't possibly pray to ever deity in the modern world...do we do the top 3? Top 5? Yours? Mine? On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't support persecuting people of any faith (or none).
I admit I don't understand the siege mentality that seems to be common among fundamentalists...we shouldn't give creationism equal time because there isn't any evidence, not because we hate creationists and want to supress their beliefs. Believe what you want...just don't confuse it with science. If you want to have a humanities class about it, knock yourself out.
To me it the difference between "tolerance" and "advocacy."
It's the most common complaint I hear from conservatives about liberal hypocrisy.
No doubt. I'd love to hear what you believe those paradoxes are; you may point out something I've not thought of.
Oh, you know things like, being against the death penalty but for unrestricted abortions, even against reasonable restrictions. For racial equality but also for affirmative action (i.e. "reverse" racism). Promoting class warfare, despite the fact that most ranking democrats are "filthy rich" (see: the Kennedys) and use tax loop holes to avoid paying taxes, or as Obama has caused to be notice just not even bothering paying. For personal freedom, but restricts people's ability to speak on grounds that it would "infringe" on others, e.g. people speaking at graduation ceremonies and wanting to say a prayer, in other words treating religious speach by a different standard as other types. The suppport of power of the people, and yet seeking to restrict communities from deciding for themselves what types of displays (holidays and such) are appropriate. Wanting to respect the planet but tolerating liberal leaders jetting around wasting and poluting, when there is technology for "tele-conferencing". Being anti-war, and yet tolerating and excusing the continued wars by liberal leaders (see: Obama and Afghanistan). There are more, but my guess is if you can't see the paradoxes within "liberals", then it is pretty pointless trying to state them. As you say, "conservatives" have similar paradoxes (just from the other direction). People are complicated and paradoxical creatures, so in the end it just matters which paradoxes are more inline with each person's own.
Oh, you know things like, being against the death penalty but for unrestricted abortions, even against reasonable restrictions.
This may be hard to understand, but I don't view abortion as murder, because I don't view a fetus as a person. I realize this is a very often a disagreement that boils down to whether one believes in the soul (which I don't).
For racial equality but also for affirmative action (i.e. "reverse" racism).
Ah yes, affirmative action. I have mixed feelings about that, but I think you're missing what the proponents would say: it is needed to level the playing field. Not for equality of outcome, but for equality of opportunity.
Promoting class warfare, despite the fact that most ranking democrats are "filthy rich" (see: the Kennedys) and use tax loop holes to avoid paying taxes, or as Obama has caused to be notice just not even bothering paying.
Pointing out the ridiculous wealth disparity in our society doesnt constitute class warfare. But regardless, isn't that position only a paradox if person holding it is filthy rich?
For personal freedom, but restricts people's ability to speak on grounds that it would "infringe" on others, e.g. people speaking at graduation ceremonies and wanting to say a prayer, in other words treating religious speach by a different standard as other types.
In my experience, charges of intolerance are *usually* inaccurate, and almost without exception levelled by people upset because at a court for having the temerity to enforce the separation of church and state. Frankly, religous speech *is* different from other types, because of the separation of church and state. The graduations you're speaking of almost certainly took place at publicly funded institutions, did they not?
The suppport of power of the people, and yet seeking to restrict communities from deciding for themselves what types of displays (holidays and such) are appropriate.
Again, this almost certainly involved schools or other publically-funded organizations.
Wanting to respect the planet but tolerating liberal leaders jetting around wasting and poluting, when there is technology for "tele-conferencing".
No defense here; this is just asshattery.
Being anti-war, and yet tolerating and excusing the continued wars by liberal leaders (see: Obama and Afghanistan).
"Anti-war" is an oversimplification. I am against the war in Iraq. I'm against war in general, unless absolutely necessary. I have *always* supported going into Afghanistan to get the people that attacked us. But since we're in both places now, it would be a mistake to just up and leave if we're going to distabilize everything.
There are more, but my guess is if you can't see the paradoxes within "liberals", then it is pretty pointless trying to state them. As you say, "conservatives" have similar paradoxes (just from the other direction). People are complicated and paradoxical creatures, so in the end it just matters which paradoxes are more inline with each person's own.
And I don't expect to persuade you, either, except perhaps that people on both sides screw up. A lot.
|
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2217732/posts
I just cant take a party that has members that say this seriously
Trust me when I say that no single party has cornered the market on stupidity. To take stupid comments from a single person and use them to reflect on a whole party is obviously folly.
This is a perfect case study for what we call a "straw man" argument.
This may be hard to understand, but I don't view abortion as murder, because I don't view a fetus as a person. I realize this is a very often a disagreement that boils down to whether one believes in the soul (which I don't).
Actually the concept of a soul or not is not really the issue. The issue is whether it is a "person" or not. In some cases, unborn (uniquely genetic) homo-sapiens are considered persons (see: court cases of people being charged for 2 murders for the death of a pregnant woman), in other cases they are not (see: abortions). Certainly a person's belief of a soul or not might determine what it means to be a "person" in their view, but the soul is not the fundamental issue, the definition of a "person" is.
So what is a "person"?
Ah yes, affirmative action. I have mixed feelings about that, but I think you're missing what the proponents would say: it is needed to level the playing field. Not for equality of outcome, but for equality of opportunity.
Family income is a much better determinant of success than race is now a days. If affirmative action ever had a place, it has long since past.
Pointing out the ridiculous wealth disparity in our society doesnt constitute class warfare. But regardless, isn't that position only a paradox if person holding it is filthy rich?
Making people that are well of as the "bad guys", even though at least 50% of millionaires are "self-made", and then acting like the rich democrats are somehow immune to the "evil" of money is what causes it to be a paradox. If being "rich" is bad, then so are rich dems and so they should not be supported either.
In my experience, charges of intolerance are *usually* inaccurate, and almost without exception levelled by people upset because at a court for having the temerity to enforce the separation of church and state. Frankly, religous speech *is* different from other types, because of the separation of church and state. The graduations you're speaking of almost certainly took place at publicly funded institutions, did they not?
There is no "separation of church and state" in the U.S. constitution. There is not to be an establishment of religion, that doesn't mean that religion should not have the same exact protections as any other form of speech. If someone wants to recite Karl Marx at a graduation ceremony, then someone else should be able to make a prayer as well. In publicly funded institutions there should be MORE protection of speech, not less.
Again, this almost certainly involved schools or other publically-funded organizations.
See above, publically-funded organizations should have a higher protection of freedom of speech, not less.
The suppport of power of the people, and yet seeking to restrict communities from deciding for themselves what types of displays (holidays and such) are appropriate.
This is one that really annoys me. I love Christmas trees. I'm not a Christian, but the needles smell good and the lights are pretty and they make a really nice display. Anyone who would want to restrict a Christmas tree display confuses me greatly; as TJ once said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I have no problem with manger scenes or menorahs, either! I would have a problem if, say, the menorahs were suppressed in favor of the nativity displays, but how often does that really happen?
I did get annoyed when I was teaching high school and the Student Christian group was permitted to block the halls and interrogate everyone going in if they had been saved, but the school prohibited student organizations of any other religion -- that, to me, is a violation of the Establishment clause. Is it worth suing over? Not to me, but it's needlessly antagonizing to everyone of any other faith; it gives Christians a bad name and makes everyone else feel slighted besides.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Seems pretty clear to me, though I understand the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Bill of Rights.
If, for example, I go to court, and there in the lobby is a freakin display of the ten commandments, can you really tell me that isn't at all implying a state religion?
As to what is a "person." I can see this is going to get down to ugly semantics pretty fast. For me, self-awareness, or past self-awareness with the potential to regain said self awareness, is a fundamental component of personhood. And yes, that means if someone is brain dead, it isn't murder to pull the plug. Unnecessary? Probably. Cruel? Possibly, but only to the survivors. But not murder.
Look, we aren't going to agree. You aren't going to convince me with things I've heard before, and vice-versa.
That being said, I'm not trying to say both sides don't have paradoxes, because you're right; they do. I shouldn't have started advocating for my side. My bad.
This is one that really annoys me. I love Christmas trees. I'm not a Christian, but the needles smell good and the lights are pretty and they make a really nice display. Anyone who would want to restrict a Christmas tree display confuses me greatly; as TJ once said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I have no problem with manger scenes or menorahs, either! I would have a problem if, say, the menorahs were suppressed in favor of the nativity displays, but how often does that really happen?
I agree. I like Christmas trees, and not just because I know most of the trapping of Christmas are anything but Christian. But as far as businesses, etc., go, I believe that is more fear of civil action than it is a governmental mandate. And no, companies shouldn't have to fear displaying a Christmas Tree. Private property is private property, and anyone who doesn't get that is indeed a hypocrite.
I'd go so far as to be willing to pitch in for a town Christmas display. At school, we had a minute of silence; kids who wanted to pray silently could do so; others could rest or meditate or whatever. I loved it, because it was my only minute of silence all day. But tell me I'm required to participate in organized Christian prayers in a public school, or support churches with my tax dollars, and I'll very quickly stop being so nice.
Besides, Christmas trees aren't REALLY Christian symbols anyway. They're pagan symbols the Christians adopted to make their holiday more popular. Christ wasn't even born in the wintertime.
Mistletoe and yule logs are Norse pagan traditions, too.
Then you would advocate plastering over the copy engraved in the wall of the Supreme Court chambers?
Personally, I'd look at it on a case-by-case basis. As I'm sure you realize, that representation is one of many symbols of law from past ages. No exculsivity; no claim to absolute authority -- in short, no harm, no foul. There's a huge difference between that, and, say, putting a huge display of the Ten Commandments as you enter the place with a placard saying, "The Only Legal Code This Court Needs" or something. In any case, the display is less important than the intent -- are we putting up a nice decoration with a pseudo-legal symbology, or are we claiming divine justice? Is the judge ruling based on laws established by the people, or is he somehow claiming to act on God's behalf, using the Bible in preference to the laws of the land? And if anyone thinks the latter is OK, how would people feel if he was judging based on Sharia law instead?
Then you would advocate plastering over the copy engraved in the wall of the Supreme Court chambers?
If, for example, I go to court, and there in the lobby is a freakin display of the ten commandments, can you really tell me that isn't at all implying a state religion?
Wallpaper? Honestly, whatever costs the least. No reason to waste public funds.