From: J. Clarke on
On 4/15/2010 5:11 PM, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq7okb$6e0$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>>> --DR
>>>
>>> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
>>> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
>>> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case
>>> we are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations,
>>> there are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>>
>> Are you suggesting that people of faith have no business being active
>> in government?
>
> They have no business trying to impose their faith on other people if
> that is why they are being active.
>
> They also have no business trying to control what other people do based
> on their faith or religious beliefs. As I stated, I am a person of
> faith, I am active in government but would NEVER use the government to
> force my religious beliefs on other people.
>
> While the founding fathers felt religion was needed to guide the
> country, they also created separation of church and state for good reason.

Yes, they did it for a good reason. They did it so that Massachussetts
and Connecticut, both of which had state religions, would ratify the
Constitution. The wording is very careful--"Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion". Not "there shall be no law"
but that Congress specifically is enjoined from making such a law.
From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-15 12:41:13 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said:
---------------------------
> I should have added I support the "least corrupt" :-)
>
> Stephanie

I like that idea.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq76l2$9o2$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bMednb_-lv-IolvWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq4ktc$otk$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kb6dnYJomvx3KVjWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> [...]
>>>> But you aren't satisfied with that; for some reason you want some
>>>> chimerical pretend-"marriage" to be recognized for what it is not, and
>>>> you want other people to be forced by law to recognize it for something
>>>> they know it is not.
>>>>
>>>> And that, you see, is the issue. Nothing to do with "bigotry."
>
>>> It has everything to do with bigotry.
>>> --DR
>
>> Yes. It is bigotry in the same way that separate restrooms for blacks was
>> bigotry in most Southern cities back in the 60's. It didn't matter that
>> the restrooms were the same, or just as good, or even better and more
>> numerous. No black person had to wet his pants.....Just the fact that
>> they were separate was an imposition on his liberty.
>
> Yes - but this concept does seem to be difficult for some to grasp
> (that "equal but separate" cannot represent equality under the law
> and the constitution), and it was so decided long ago by the supreme
> court. But we still see posts like NH's above, and PS's below who
> fail to understand what "bigotry" means, and that permitting its
> existence is not appropriate.
> --DR
>
Well, people's opinions change with time and knowledge. I can remember when
I was incensed back in the 60's when they made a law that prevented me (or
anyone else) from only selling their home to those people whom they wanted
to sell it to. There were black people who wanted to live in a neighborhood,
but couldn't, "break in" to it, because people would "protect their
neighbors interests" by not selling their homes to them. I believed this was
a bad law, because it was an imposition on my "rights" to sell my house to
whomever I wanted to sell it to. Shortly after that, I changed my opinion on
that. Now I know that it was a good law. Once something is no longer mine, I
should have no control over who owns it, and, I should have to sell it to
the highest bidder. So, even my libertarianism is subject to laws of
exception, especially when those laws facilitate the rights of others to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....

Hopefully, the courts, and public opinion will change on the rights of gays
to marry also.

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq77o5$bgp$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PbednWiS8u2m3FvWnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>> In this country is seems to breed generations of welfare puppies who just
>> live off the government programs that were intended for those who are
>> really disabled by birth or circumstance. Less than 2% of the people
>> drawing welfare checks in this country have some disability, either
>> mental or physical. I would like to get them off of the public dole and
>> give the other 2% 50 times as much money as they are getting now. Is that
>> such a bad thing?
>
> Hmmm, what would you do with the (presumably mostly
> unable to make a living at this point) 98%? I guess we could
> leave them in the streets to beg, as many of them already do...
> --DR
>

The ones I have met are not "unable to make a living". Take the lady that
lived downstairs in our apartment building many years ago. She had two
pre-schoolers, and was single. She was a competent short order cook. The
state of California was giving her $350 a month for her rent, and a couple
of hundred for her food, and if she had taken a short order cooking job,
(and there were plenty available then) she would have lost all that, and had
to pay for child care for her kids, and would have ended up worse off than
she was. So, she stayed home and did nothing. I thought there should be some
sort of sliding scale payments for her that would have encouraged her to
work, but what do I know? Today the state of California (which is where this
was) is over 20 billion dollars in debt......And I know why.......

From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hq7bog$ig9$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XOmdnSdpaeQPsVvWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>>within reach of the presidency
>
>>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>
>> No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency. He is
>> currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to the visiting
>> team, and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into terrible debt. We
>> have only one more chance to get rid of him, and that chance may be too
>> late.
>
> I guess I disagree with you on several counts. I think
> no one else would call Obama an idiot. Hey, he actually
> THINKS (amazing, I know ;-), and not just for the short
> term (and about what will get him elected again), but for
> the long term, and what is best for the country and its
> people. (BTW, have you seen the graph of the rate of
> change of unemployment for the last Bush year and the
> first Obama year? It looks like a very deep "V", with
> when Obama took office in the middle...;-) People with
> your point of view may not realize that even Republicans
> and conservative economists saw that we were at the brink
> of a deep depression with REALLY serious unemployment,
> loss of housing, etc. Bad as this recession has been, things
> are now moving upward. Without throwing "tons" of money
> at the problem, almost all serious economists agree that we
> were at the edge of a VERY serious economic collapse.
> Spending to get us out of this was necessary (and that
> would have been less painful had the Republicans been
> more financially responsible, having been left a surplus by
> Clinton). While it appears the debt is huge (it is, but the
> interest proportion of it compared with GDP is surprisingly
> small...), by adjusting taxing, spending more efficiently, and
> encouraging prosperity, we may work our way out of this
> sooner than many people think (and I would rather have a
> "big picture" president to lead us through this than one who
> appears unable to take the long view on anything [even her
> tenure as governor of Alaska...]).
> --DR
>
Even if his economic practices don't hurt us. (for the most part, they are
Nancy Pelosi's practices anyway) I think he is very bad at foreign
relations. We are even more the laughing stock of the Arab world than we
were under Bush. I long for a president who will say to Iran, "We will help
you build your reactor and operate it for electric power. All you have to do
is let us remain a presence at the facility, so we are sure you don't use if
for bomb making." And then, when they refuse, be intelligent enough to see
the writing on the wall, and bomb the hell out of their facility with many
deep-penetration bombs.