The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

But words like "wall" and "seperate" are just policy terms added into constitutional caselaw.

Do these things conflict?

-Congress shall make no law:
1. respecting an establishment of religion
2. prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The second one is pretty easy, the first one is a little harder to nail down a meaning for. Clearly, Congress can't establish a "national religion", and they can't favor any one religion over another. "Seperation of church and state" may be a perfectly line idea or policy about how government should be run, but it seems like a stretch to me that the constitution requires it.

I don't believe items 1 and 2 conflict at all. What they say is: The government will not establish an official religion, while at the same time, not prevent anyone from whatever religion/non-religion they choose. Basically, 'we the government', will stay out of the business of religion. Due to having that in the constitution, the government has to step in from time to time to reinforce the fact that it is NOT favoring or trying establish one religion over another.

I don't know why item 1 is hard for people to figure out. Actually I do know why, it's because there are a good number of elected officials that want to inject their religion into legislation, which violates the 1st amendment and they don't always get called out on it, so it may go years or decades before someone calls attention to it. Then people get their panties in a bunch and say, "It's been like that for years and hasn't hurt anyone". Which is true, but, still doesn't negate the fact that it violates the 1st amendment.

It's kind of like the speeding ticket story. You go 300 days driving 70 in a 65 and never got a ticket, but on day 301 you get pulled over. Just because you didn't get pulled over the previous 300 days, doesn't mean you weren't violating the law.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The government will not establish an official religion, while at the same time, not prevent anyone from whatever religion/non-religion they choose. Basically, 'we the government', will stay out of the business of religion.

"Establishing an official religion" sounds like a lot different than "staying out of the business of religion" entirely. Certainly, government wasn't doing the latter in the years after the constitution was ratified. Why did it only become obvious to us 200 years later? Especially when government/public lands/works are such a huge part of our lives - and exactly how huge depends on the whims of whoever is in power at the time. Is it really up to the year-to-year outcome of the big government/small government debate how much religion one is allowed to express? I don't believe that was the intention.

One of the modern ideas is - "go be religious in a church and don't bother anyone, and we won't have a problem". For some though, practicing religion goes beyond the walls of the church. I don't think the constitution forbids that, to bring religious practice into anything that bumps up against government (which can be almost everything outside of a church and private home). What I think the constitution forbids is one religion utilizing political power to push out all others (or to require people, through the government, to convert, ect.)

[molson]

Dola, and of course, none of this is written in stone. If religion in America is a dinosaur facing exctinction, then it shouldn't be too hard to get 3/4 of the states to increase the "freedom from religion" idea and minimize the "freedom of religion" idea with some kind of ammendment. That's tough to do, with good reason, but not impossible if we're heading in that direction.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

"Establishing an official religion" sounds like a lot different than "staying out of the business of religion" entirely. Certainly, government wasn't doing the latter in the years after the constitution was ratified. Why did it only become obvious to us 200 years later? Especially when government/public lands/works are such a huge part of our lives - and exactly how huge depends on the whims of whoever is in power at the time. Is it really up to the year-to-year outcome of the big government/small government debate how much religion one is allowed to express? I don't believe that was the intention.

Would, "staying out of the business of religion the best we can" be better? It all means the same thing and shy of playing semantics anything that gives the impression that the government is favoring or trying to establish one religion over another, violates the constitution, regardless of past practices. I think part of it is, there's people (like me) that have grown tired of the religious (this doesn't mean every single person that is religious) trying to monopolize the legislature and other aspects of peoples lives and have become more vocal about it. There's laws still on the books in 5 states (if I remember correctly) that have provisions that outlaw atheists from holding public office. Those laws violate the constitution and have been declared unconstitutional, however, they still remain 'on the books'.

I'm kind of torn on the question of the constitution being a 'living' document that can be changed over time or it being a document that is set in stone, black and white. I think I'm kind of in the middle on that, so, when a church group wants to use a public park for a religious celebration, I have no problems with it, as long as they are given no special treatment compared to other groups that use that public land.

I don't think there should be any debate. It's quite clear to me: Anyone should be allowed to worship as much or as little (or none at all) as they want. I would be vehemently opposed to any legislation that puts any kinds of restrictions or mandates on that. Likewise, because of the separation of church and state, religious organizations should stay out of any legislation or any government organization. Basically, as much as government should stay out of religion is how much religion needs to stay out of government.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed on the Christians - what confuses me is why it's such a no-brainer for Keith Olberman and friends.

I guess it is a "no-brainer" for anyone with basic human sensibilities. You don't destroy something someone else holds sacred, simply because you have differences with them. I'd be more disappointed with anyone who is supporting this, than I would be questioning the motives of those that oppose it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed on the Christians - what confuses me is why it's such a no-brainer for Keith Olberman and friends.

I don't know about Keith Olbermann religious beliefs, but many of his "friends" are Christians and it's kind of a stupid stereotype to assume that they aren't.

But even among your narrow minded viewpoint, they would obviously be against book burning and one dimensional hatred of an entire group of people.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Don't ya' get it Larry. Since we don't think one religious group should try to legislate morality and install bigotry as public policy, we should be cool with another religious group being treated as second-class citizens.

I get that you're trying to be sarcastic with this, but even the wording of your sarcastic statement confuses me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You don't destroy something someone else holds sacred, simply because you have differences with them.

I think "have differences with" grossly underestimates the situation, to the point of absurdity. "Have differences" is being a fan of the WAC vs the MWC. This is a bit bigger than that.

That said, I'm not inclined to invest the energy in burning a Koran, I don't see much point other than a brief moment of pleasure & there are easier ways to get that. If they had called for the pages to be used to wrap bbq pork or bacon sandwiches in, I might have been more motivated, but as is, meh.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think "have differences with" grossly underestimates the situation, to the point of absurdity. "Have differences" is being a fan of the WAC vs the MWC. This is a bit bigger than that.

...

I can understand that. I guess the size of the "disagreement" doesn't matter to me. This is simply the wrong thing to do. Not to mention that it isn't every Muslim that falls into the category that this church is presumably targeting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I guess it is a "no-brainer" for anyone with basic human sensibilities. You don't destroy something someone else holds sacred, simply because you have differences with them. I'd be more disappointed with anyone who is supporting this, than I would be questioning the motives of those that oppose it.

But is it really sacred? If we're talking about a Bible that was passed on by your Grandmother before she die, sure. If we're talking about a religuous artifact that meant a lot to people, sure. But are books coming off an assembly line in some publishing warehouse really sacred?

I guess I just view it as materials. To be sacred, there has to be a connection to it on an individual basis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But is it really sacred? If we're talking about a Bible that was passed on by your Grandmother before she die, sure. If we're talking about a religuous artifact that meant a lot to people, sure. But are books coming off an assembly line in some publishing warehouse really sacred?
I guess I just view it as materials. To be sacred, there has to be a connection to it on an individual basis.

At the risk of a sidebar -- in a thread approaching 12k posts, I'll take that chance-- that brings a question to my mind that I figure some FOFC'er can answer.

What would the reaction, (moreso emotional than confrontational I mean) be from a practicing Catholic who saw, for example, someone stomping a set of rosary beads to bits on the sidewalk? Is there any "sacred" significance given in Catholicism to the beads themselves or are they more in the realm of a practical aid, like maybe a bookmark or something for lack of a better description?

Has nothing to do specifically with the topic at hand, just the mention of assembly lined religious materials caused me to think of it I guess because I've been surprised at some of the places I've seen rosaries for sale. Figured rather than wonder, I'd just ask since I think we've got at least a few Catholics here who could provide an answer. Thanks in advance.

[DaddyTorgo]

interesting question jon...

[cartman]

A straight-from-the-store rosary doesn't have the same religious connotation as ones that have been blessed by a priest.

[Greyroofoo]

The response would vary by the individual Catholic person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

The response would vary by the individual Catholic person.

Yeah, I get that, I'm just looking for some sort of general notion of what reaction might be expected from, say, a relatively observant Catholic in the U.S.

Let's say a middle-aged lifelong Catholic who lives in Minneapolis, shows up for regular services occasionally as well as most of the major holidays. Regular enough that the priest knows his name but irregular enough that he has to think about it for a few seconds to remember it when he sees him. Is he most likely to be morally horrified at the site of what the rosary stomper is doing, mildly disturbed by it, or disapprove of it but is otherwise relatively unaffected by it beyond a mild head shake?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, I get that, I'm just looking for some sort of general notion of what reaction might be expected from, say, a relatively observant Catholic in the U.S.

Let's say a middle-aged lifelong Catholic who lives in Minneapolis, shows up for regular services occasionally as well as most of the major holidays. Regular enough that the priest knows his name but irregular enough that he has to think about it for a few seconds to remember it when he sees him. Is he most likely to be morally horrified at the site of what the rosary stomper is doing, mildly disturbed by it, or disapprove of it but is otherwise relatively unaffected by it beyond a mild head shake?

I think the last one. I think majority of US based Catholics tend to passive in these matters. It will probably be different in other strong Catholic countries like Italy, Philippines etc.

[Edward64]

More analysis to come I'm sure.
FOXNews.com - Gov't: Spending to Rise Under Obama's Health Care Overhaul

The average annual growth in health care spending will be just two-tenths of 1 percentage point higher through 2019 with Obama's remake, said the analysis. And that's with more than 32 million uninsured gaining coverage because of the new law.

"The impact is moderate," said economist Andrea Sisko of Medicare's Office of the Actuary, the nonpartisan unit that prepared the report.

Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387.

That works out to $265 more with the overhaul. Currently, Americans spend $8,389 a year per person on health care.

[JPhillips]

Nice headline by Fox.

[JPhillips]

The writing is terrible, but I thought the point of this piece was pretty funny.

One of those angry at a Florida preacher's plans to mark Sept. 11 by setting fire to copies of the Quran is Shirley Phelps Roper, a leader of the Westboro Baptist Church.

While she joins Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gen. David Petraeus, the White House, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and many more, Phelps-Roper, Fred Phelps' lawyer daughter, is hardly a voice for religious tolerance.

Her irritation Wednesday was not that the Rev. Terry Jones and his Dove World Outreach Center's planned bonfire would offend Muslims worldwide and probably increase the danger to American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's that in 2008 she and her father's Topeka flock set fire to a Quran in plain view on a Washington, D.C., street and nobody seemed to care.

"We did it a long time before this guy," Phelps-Roper said by telephone from a street corner in downtown Chicago, scene of the latest Westboro picket — against Jews this time, not gays.

The difference could be that in 2008 many news media outlets had decided to ignore the group's routine of spewing hatred at funerals of fallen American soldiers.

So when Fred Phelps, calling Muhammad a "pedophilic gigolo," went online and invited people to attend the burning, most stayed away.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think the last one. I think majority of US based Catholics tend to passive in these matters. It will probably be different in other strong Catholic countries like Italy, Philippines etc.

Try organizing a Bible-burning here in Manila. It'd probably cost you your life.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What would the reaction, (moreso emotional than confrontational I mean) be from a practicing Catholic who saw, for example, someone stomping a set of rosary beads to bits on the sidewalk? Is there any "sacred" significance given in Catholicism to the beads themselves or are they more in the realm of a practical aid, like maybe a bookmark or something for lack of a better description?

Depends where you do it I'd expect - such an act in an area with Protestant vs Catholic tension could get yourself in EXTREMELY hot water in some places, for instance if you did it in blatantly in the wrong Catholic area in Ireland there'd be the change it might be the last thing you did ...

In some areas religion is like 'gang colours' - be shown as not belonging to the right group and you're on shaky ground, be shown as disrespecting the majority shareholder in an area and you're in deep doggy doo.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, I get that, I'm just looking for some sort of general notion of what reaction might be expected from, say, a relatively observant Catholic in the U.S.

Let's say a middle-aged lifelong Catholic who lives in Minneapolis, shows up for regular services occasionally as well as most of the major holidays. Regular enough that the priest knows his name but irregular enough that he has to think about it for a few seconds to remember it when he sees him. Is he most likely to be morally horrified at the site of what the rosary stomper is doing, mildly disturbed by it, or disapprove of it but is otherwise relatively unaffected by it beyond a mild head shake?

Trick question as there are only Lutherans in Minnesota

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Trick question as there are only Lutherans in Minnesota

Welcome to the official website of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Established in 1850, the Archdiocese is currently led by The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt and serves a rich and diverse community of approximately 800,000 Catholics in a 6,187 square mile area consisting of 12 counties

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the risk of a sidebar -- in a thread approaching 12k posts, I'll take that chance-- that brings a question to my mind that I figure some FOFC'er can answer.

What would the reaction, (moreso emotional than confrontational I mean) be from a practicing Catholic who saw, for example, someone stomping a set of rosary beads to bits on the sidewalk? Is there any "sacred" significance given in Catholicism to the beads themselves or are they more in the realm of a practical aid, like maybe a bookmark or something for lack of a better description?

Has nothing to do specifically with the topic at hand, just the mention of assembly lined religious materials caused me to think of it I guess because I've been surprised at some of the places I've seen rosaries for sale. Figured rather than wonder, I'd just ask since I think we've got at least a few Catholics here who could provide an answer. Thanks in advance.

Roman Catholic here. While the answer would, of course, depend on the Catholic, I do think that rosary beads are seen more along the lines of a sacred object (i.e. like a bible) than an practical aid (i.e like a cushion on a pew).

Growing up in New Orleans, we played a lot with Mardi Gras beads as kids. But it was very very clear that we should not play with rosary beads in the same manner. They were not a toy. They had some level of sacredness to them.

(Of course, New Orleans' Catholicism, having been influenced by voodoo, etc. over the centuries, probably places a bit more significance on objects as sacred in se than other branches of the Faith. So maybe mine is not the best perspective on the issue.)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Probably just anticipating the insertion of his two cents worth on the subject.
(unless of course Rahm managed to lock him in his office)

No such luck

Obama implores minister to call off Quran burning - Yahoo! News

SI

[JPhillips]

If nominated tonight, I WIN!!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Welcome to the official website of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Established in 1850, the Archdiocese is currently led by The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt and serves a rich and diverse community of approximately 800,000 Catholics in a 6,187 square mile area consisting of 12 counties

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's a silly assertion. Everyone knows that Catholic are just Lutherans who haven't come out of the closet yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Roman Catholic here. While the answer would, of course, depend on the Catholic, I do think that rosary beads are seen more along the lines of a sacred object (i.e. like a bible) than an practical aid (i.e like a cushion on a pew) ... So maybe mine is not the best perspective on the issue.)

Thanks albion, I appreciate it, right down to the caveats about how it could also be influenced by region.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But is it really sacred? If we're talking about a Bible that was passed on by your Grandmother before she die, sure. If we're talking about a religuous artifact that meant a lot to people, sure. But are books coming off an assembly line in some publishing warehouse really sacred?

I guess I just view it as materials. To be sacred, there has to be a connection to it on an individual basis.

Did Rick Monday have a personal or individual connection to the flag that he rescued? I don't think sacred means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means, and I'm using the wrong word.

Certainly burning bibles will get a rise out of Christians. We've seen instances where merely not demonstrating proper reverence to the koran has sparked anger from Muslims. So in answer to your question...Yes, these mass produced, straight from the assembly line objects are revered by people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - Obama: Minister must cancel Quran-burning 'stunt'

Obviously, I'm not a fan of BO sticking his nose into this, but at the same time I couldn't help but notice the apparent hatchet job that the AP headline writer did to him with this story.

The headline contains the very strong word "must" ... but after reading the full article, I don't see any quote from Obama that goes that far. I'd buy "urge", or "presses", even "strongly urges" or just about anything along those lines but I'm not finding anything that would justify "must", that gives a far more authoritarian impression of what was said than seems fair.

Must have been one of the token conservatives on the staff who wrote the header, or else someone trying to generate hits/readership.

[Glengoyne]

Also Props to the President for calling the Koran burning a "stunt".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Also Props to the President for calling the Koran burning a "stunt".

As opposed to what it was: a symbolic gesture to express strong disapproval / disagreement.

Jones would have gotten more support if he had just blown up something at random.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thanks albion, I appreciate it, right down to the caveats about how it could also be influenced by region.

I teach at a fairly liberal Catholic college. I don't think anybody would be in physical danger for stomping a rosary, but they would certainly be shunned and it wouldn't surprise me if they were talked to about leaving the college.

[Edward64]

More drama.
Pastor: I called off Quran burning based on Islamic center agreement - CNN.com

A Florida pastor said Thursday he called off his plan to burn copies of the Quran based on assurances that a planned Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York would be moved -- an assertion rejected by the center's visionary.

The Rev. Terry Jones, who had planned the burning this weekend on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, said he will travel Saturday to New York to meet with the religious leader behind the planned center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, about a new location.

But Rauf and Imam Muhammad Musri, a Florida Muslim leader who appeared with Jones, said no agreement on a meeting or relocation of the mosque had been reached.

Rauf issued a statement later Thursday.

"I am glad that Pastor Jones has decided not to burn any Qurans. However, I have not spoken to Pastor Jones or Imam Musri. I am surprised by their announcement. We are not going to toy with our religion or any other. Nor are we going to barter. We are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony."

[sterlingice]

*sigh* As an aside, can I be somewhat annoyed that it seems ok and accepted that Koran burning is going to be met with violence? Don't get me wrong- I find it stupid that he's going to do it. But everyone's reaction is that "Radical Muslims are crazy so we all know this will be met with violence".

I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

*sigh* As an aside, can I be somewhat annoyed that it seems ok and accepted that Koran burning is going to be met with violence? Don't get me wrong- I find it stupid that he's going to do it. But everyone's reaction is that "Radical Muslims are crazy so we all know this will be met with violence".

I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table.

SI

I agree, completely.

[JonInMiddleGA]

'Ground Zero' Mosque Staying Put, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Says

(Sept. 9) -- The imam behind a controversial plan to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the ground zero site of the former World Trade Center says he won't move the proposed project. But if he had to do it over, he'd put it somewhere else.

"If I knew that this would happen, cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN Wednesday night.

But switching locations now will send a dangerous message, Rauf told Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live."

"The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack," he said, and that could encourage Muslim extremists to attack troops overseas as well as American citizens at home. "It will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit and their increasing aggression and violence against our country."

So now if he moves it, the switch could incite violence? Is that supposed to be a warning or a threat?

And the claim of "if I knew this would happen ... I wouldn't have done it"? Is there anyone naive enough not to have anticipated the reaction? Even with my level of cynicism that one is hard to imagine being said with a straight face.

This guy is a fucking piece of work, and he'll find no shortage of useful idiots ready to lap it up.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting:

Judge: Military's gay ban is unconstitutional - U.S. news - Life - Military - msnbc.com

DADT revoked. Interesting that this case was brought by Republicans (yes the Log Cabin Republicans), I wonder if that will lower the amount of frothing about "activist librul judges". (who am I kidding, to quote DUNEm the froth must flow!)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I wonder if that will lower the amount of frothing about "activist librul judges". (who am I kidding, to quote DUNEm the froth must flow!)

Glad you clarified that you were kidding, I was about to ROTFL.

Not a big shock with this ruling, she's a Clinton appointee who went to Berkeley.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

More drama.
Pastor: I called off Quran burning based on Islamic center agreement - CNN.com

Ladies and Gentlemen....Religion!

[cuervo72]

Obama walks back Clinton’s Colombia-Mexico comparison | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

Pretty bad when I find myself agreeing with Hillary...

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

*sigh* As an aside, can I be somewhat annoyed that it seems ok and accepted that Koran burning is going to be met with violence? Don't get me wrong- I find it stupid that he's going to do it. But everyone's reaction is that "Radical Muslims are crazy so we all know this will be met with violence".

I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table.

SI

I honestly agree.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table.

Is it similarly ok if I think certain other religious groups in Ireland should grow up and get a life instead of encouraging violence and death upon their rival factions? .....

Note - They aren't muslims ... there are idiots in all religions

(edited to fix quote - and to admit that both groups involved have 'grown up' a fair bit in recent years and don't openly slaughter each other at least nowadays )

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, I think he's fine to be surprised this became a huge national issue because three months ago, nobody knew the thing existed except for the cranks who go to zoning board meetings. If not for the right-wing blogs > talk radio > FOX News > Beltway Media path so much crap takes today, 99% of the population would still be unaware of this building.

Interesting communications flow, would you be willing to complete the left-wing communications flow?

right-wing blogs > talk radio > FOX News > Beltway Media

left-wing blogs > larger medium > even larger medium > Beltway Media

I'm not completely familiar with what "Beltway Media" means unless you mean things like "Meet the Press" and the "Beltway Boys" (if they even still exist).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Is it similarly ok if I think certain other religious groups in Ireland should grow up and get a life instead of encouraging violence and death upon their rival factions? .....

Note - They aren't muslims ... there are idiots in all religions

Yes, 100%. If you can't come to the table and talk, opting only for violence, then, yes. I mean, geez- even Israel and Palestine are coming to the table once again (dog and pony show tho it may be).

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

*sigh* As an aside, can I be somewhat annoyed that it seems ok and accepted that Koran burning is going to be met with violence? Don't get me wrong- I find it stupid that he's going to do it. But everyone's reaction is that "Radical Muslims are crazy so we all know this will be met with violence".

I'm sorry, but like the Mohammad pictures a couple of years ago and the ensuing violence and death... I just can't help but thinking that Islam as a religion needs to grow up some more before it gets a seat at the big kid's table.

SI

+1

Also I like the seat at the table analogy. I've said similar regarding Palestine as a nation, but that isn't usually received very well.

Does it violate the usage of a "+1" to elaborate?
I'm disappointed that a church, or anyone for that matter, would invest in such an act of hatred, but Islam gets no pass for intolerance in response.

[AENeuman]

Just want to say, with all this negative hate filled shit going on the positive outpouring of aid and comfort for the victims of the explosion here last night renews my spirit.

Almost immediately people were emptying out costco and dropping stuff off at the shelter. the call for blood was so overwhelming they are telling people to come back next week. they were interviewing people who were dropping off their own clothing and toys and this family of recent immigrants simply said this is what you do when your people in your community are in pain.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Just want to say, with all this negative hate filled shit going on the positive outpouring of aid and comfort for the victims of the explosion here last night renews my spirit.
.

I wonder sometimes how much "hate filled shit" is really going on. Most of the people I talk with don't seem to care at all about the pastor, wonder why the media even covers this, and don't seem to have an positive or negative opinion on Islam as a whole one way or the other. I wonder how many people (like JiMGa) really want nuclear war and how many think the mass media is a big joke?

(This isn't just friends who would be like-minded but work collegues, people at football tailgates, and friends of friends)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Libertarians issue warning to Tea Partiers

WASHINGTON - Looking toward the 9/12 Tea Party events in Washington, DC, Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict issued the following warning to Tea Partiers: "Republicans are trying to fool you again."

"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers," said Benedict. "One kind is so blinded by its hatred of Obama and Democrats that it cannot see fault with Republicans. It's the other kind the Libertarian Party is reaching out to."

Libertarian Party staff and volunteers will participate in the Washington, DC Tea Party events on September 12. They will distribute flyers pointing out how the Top 10 Disasters of the 2009-2010 Obama administration mirror the Top 10 Disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration.

Benedict continued, "Libertarians have much in common with Tea Party goals of reducing government spending and taxes. While many Tea Party supporters will admit that George W. Bush's administration grew government, Libertarians want to remind Tea Partiers about previous Republican administrations that loved big government.

"Republican Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America promised to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Yet once Republicans took control of Congress, they failed even to reduce the spending on those departments.

"Republican President George Bush, Sr. remains famous for coining the phrase 'Read my lips, no new taxes,' and then raising taxes.

"Republican President Ronald Reagan grew federal government spending to the highest level it had reached since World War II. He also 'saved Social Security' by raising payroll taxes.

"Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole was a huge supporter of taxpayer subsidies for corn and ethanol.

"In 1971, Republican President Richard Nixon instituted wage and price controls. That made a group of free-market supporters so angry that they decided to form the Libertarian Party.

"Republicans seem to think we're idiots. For decades they have paid lip-service to shrinking government, while consistently doing the opposite in office.

"Our fear is that Tea Partiers might say 'This time it will be different.' No it won't. If you vote for Republicans this time, it will just reinforce the message that they can lie to you and grow government with impunity.

"Current Republicans are just as bad as past Republicans.

"This year, Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan is running for U.S. Senate against Republican John McCain, who famously suspended his 2008 presidential campaign so he could rush back to Washington to bail out the banks.

"Republican leader John Boehner might end up as the next House Speaker, and he voted for George W. Bush's huge 2003 Medicare expansion.

"John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, and current chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, voted for the TARP bailouts.

"Ron Paul is probably the only Republican congressman willing to point out the huge cost of America's foreign wars and empire building. Other Republicans pretend that spending trillions on the military just doesn't count as big government.

"With Social Security, Medicare, and military spending making up the vast majority of federal spending, you can't cut significantly without cutting those. But Republicans refuse to touch them.

"Libertarians welcome the Tea Party movement's focus on the problem of government growth. However, we are concerned that Tea Partiers might fall for the Republicans' trickery.

"Republican leaders have brought up distractions like New York City mosques and gay marriage to distract voters from Republicans' big-government track record. We hope that Tea Partiers will see through the smoke and mirrors.

"While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with Libertarian steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

"The Libertarian Party is fielding 168 candidates for U.S. House, and 20 candidates for U.S. Senate this year. Win or lose, a vote for a Libertarian sends a clear message for smaller government and more freedom. What message does a vote for John McCain send?"

.

[DaddyTorgo]

"let the free market work" is a joke. How's the free market worked so far with healthcare costs?

LOL

I'm not saying the free market doesn't work in every instance, but there's clearly cases where free market is harmful.