Palin is another Jesus Freak

[strandinthewind]

Just what we need (rolls eyes) That McCain is actually trying to defend this bullshiitte speaks volumes to the lengths he will lie to get the WH. Haven't we had enough of the R lies from W?

Moreover, that the American people are dumb enough not to see this for what it is is even more frightening.

To put it plainly, why would a political official even ask in the first place how a librarian would react, even, hypothetically, to the banning of a book? The answer of any politician I want would be "we do not ban books." <<<<<< and that's a period

:shrug:

McCain Camp Defends Palin Book-Banning Questions

by Associated PressFriday, September 12, 2008

The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s much-criticized questions to her hometown librarian about book banning, saying the query was only hypothetical.

Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city’s head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.

Palin’s alleged attempt at book-banning has been a matter of intense interest since Republican presidential nominee John McCain named her as his running mate last month.

Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled.

Records on the city’s Web site, however, do not show any books were challenged in Wasilla in the 10 years before Palin took office.

Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn’t feel she had the librarian’s “full support.” Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time.

Still, one longtime library staffer recalls that the run-in made everyone fear for their jobs.

“Mayor Palin gave us some terrible moments and some rather gut-wrenching moments, particularly when Mary Ellen said she was going to have to leave,” said Cathy Petrie, who managed the children’s collection at the time.

Recent outrage has been fueled by Wasilla housewife Anne Kilkenny, whose 2,400-word critique of Palin’s legacy as mayor is widely posted on the Internet. Kilkenny described Palin’s actions as “out-and-out censorship.”

But the McCain campaign, in a statement, said the charge “is categorically false … Governor Sarah Palin has never asked anyone to ban a book, period.”

Emmons, a former Alaska Library Association president who now goes by Mary Ellen Baker, did not return calls seeking comment.

According to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper, Emmons did not mince words when Palin asked her “how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library” on Oct. 28, 1996, in a week when the mayor had asked department heads for letters of resignation.

“She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’,” Emmons told a reporter. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.”

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of “Pastor I Am Gay” had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said.

“Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn’t like,” Bess said. “To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke.” Other locals said the dust-up had been blown out of proportion.

“That was many years ago and Sarah never had any intention to ban books,” said David Chappel, who served as Palin’s deputy mayor for three years. “There were some vocal people in the minority, and it looks like they’re still out there.”

Jim Rettig, who heads the American Library Association based in Richmond, Virginia, suggested that lingering quarrel raises issues that are still relevant as librarians prepare to celebrate Banned Books Week later this month.

“Librarians are very committed to the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution and that means we don’t allow one individual or a group of people to dictate what people can or cannot read,” he said. “Most librarians if they got that sort of a question would be curious as to what the intent of the questioner was.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/mccain-camp-defends-palin-book-banning-inquiry/

[SuzeQuze]

Wow a fair and balanced piece of journalism on foxnews? Interesting. It's obvious she had the intent to actually get rid of a book(s). Nice cover-up attempt, which people will likely believe.

[ajmccarrell]

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go. It's not as if some of the posters here haven't tried to say that religion itself is wrong. So, what the hell is the difference?

[BombaySapphire3]

This chick is certifiable ..she obviously has allowed her extreme religious views to influence her politics in the past and who is to say she won't do it again only in a far higher offiice.I had really hoped America was over this kind of medievalism.

[strandinthewind]

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go.

Why would a mayor even ask that question?

And, your statment "so she let it go" is incorrect. She fired the librarian and then public outcry forced her to rescind that decision. So much for "simply asked the question."

That you are even attempting to defend this ****te is disappointing :rolleyes:

In the end, this c*nt is Falwell with a vagina.

It's not as if some of the posters here haven't tried to say that religion itself is wrong. So, what the hell is the difference?

Who gives a flying fukc what posters on here say? What does that have to do with what the person one step from the WH says about burning books? Why do you always try to change the focus from the issue at hand?

[BombaySapphire3]

:

In the end, this c*nt is Falwell with a vagina.




Now that is the truest, most succint cut through the BS. statement I have read on here in quite some time.:thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

Speaking of which, did you see McCain on The View today :eek:

I thought the audience was going to boo him when he said he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the USSC and that Roe was incorrectly decided.

In the end, if the USSC overturns Roe, the states will then be able to determine abortion rights on there own. The result will be that in NY you can get an abortion while in Colorado, you cannot (hypothetically). Moreover, the Fed. Govt. will never be able to acknowledge the "right to privacy" unless the Congress creates it. It is a completely unworkable system in that a doctor who performs an abortion in one state but lives in another could be tried for murder in the state in which he lives. That's just fukced up. So, the argument that the effect will be that the states dec. for themselves is, at best, a farce and anyone making it knows that or is short sighted fool.

The interesting thing is the R's were so gung ho to usurp Fla.'s soverign right to adjudicate spousal rights in the conext of Terri Schiavo that despite numerous state court rulings in favor of the former husband, the R Congress demanded essentially the same type of right be applied by the Fed. Ct.'s in that case - all in the name of the cash cow known to them as jesus. The true Jesus had nothing to do with it. But, activist courts are okay when it suits your reelection I guess and if you can make a little cash off of it, so be it :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

[estranged4life]

Personally, I am SICK of politicians and their use of "faith". I am SURE I will be hearing some religatarded BS from the Mighty Burning Shrub who is visiting this state todayto raise $$$$ for the Gas and Oil Party and their candidates the McCain-Burger and the Palin-tologist

Seems EACH political commercial shown on TV here in 'Bible Belt Central' has at least ONE mention of religion/faith - and the Demo-Gods are AS BAD as the Relig-publicans. Even the ads shown on Oklahoma TV for Obama bring up "his faith". Who gives a flying donkey **** about ones 'faith'? I don't...Some politicians RELIGIOUS (Zealot) views arent going to WIN my VOTE!!!

I abide by one of the two "Commandments" George "Cardinal Glick" Carlin mentioned in his skit about reducing the "10 commandments" down to the "2 Commandments":

"Keep thy religion to thyself"

Brian "Oral Roberts said he once saw a 60 foot tall Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma...yeah, keep taking your medication Oral, you religious asshole" j.

[skcin]

Religion should stay out of government. Period.

Everything I'm hearing & reading seems to imply that Palin "cleaned house" after she was elected governor. It's a fine line between putting together a good team of people to work together toward the common good and firing everyone who doesn't agree with you so you can hire your cronies.

I don't trust her. I don't agree with her views. I don't want her in office in any capacity.

[gldstwmn]

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go. It's not as if some of the posters here haven't tried to say that religion itself is wrong.

What is the analogy here?

[ajmccarrell]

What is the analogy here?

You complain about censorship of your views, but several times since I made my post, the rest of you wanted to censor Palin and her views, as well as mine. You guys are ridiculous. I mean, what is "religion should stay out of politics" if not censorship? LOL! You guys are as bad as you make her out to be. Good job! :thumbsup:

[ajmccarrell]

This chick is certifiable ..she obviously has allowed her extreme religious views to influence her politics in the past and who is to say she won't do it again only in a far higher offiice.I had really hoped America was over this kind of medievalism.

Throwing out labels is no substitute for having a position.

[ajmccarrell]

Personally, I am SICK of politicians and their use of "faith". I am SURE I will be hearing some religatarded BS from the Mighty Burning Shrub who is visiting this state todayto raise $$$$ for the Gas and Oil Party and their candidates the McCain-Burger and the Palin-tologist

Seems EACH political commercial shown on TV here in 'Bible Belt Central' has at least ONE mention of religion/faith - and the Demo-Gods are AS BAD as the Relig-publicans. Even the ads shown on Oklahoma TV for Obama bring up "his faith". Who gives a flying donkey **** about ones 'faith'? I don't...Some politicians RELIGIOUS (Zealot) views arent going to WIN my VOTE!!!

I abide by one of the two "Commandments" George "Cardinal Glick" Carlin mentioned in his skit about reducing the "10 commandments" down to the "2 Commandments":

"Keep thy religion to thyself"

Brian "Oral Roberts said he once saw a 60 foot tall Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma...yeah, keep taking your medication Oral, you religious asshole" j.

So, I guess you want to censor people who are for censorship. That makes a lot of sense. LOL! :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You complain about censorship of your views, but several times since I made my post, the rest of you wanted to censor Palin and her views, as well as mine. You guys are ridiculous. I mean, what is "religion should stay out of politics" if not censorship? LOL! You guys are as bad as you make her out to be. Good job! :thumbsup:

Do you actually listen to the tripe that comes out of your mouth when you make assinine points like this?

It's called the First Amendment and it prohibits the establishment of a state religion in any context. Therefore, while you and anyone else are free to spout whatever your individual views are without govt. interference (the other part of the First Amendment) -- but Plain cannot use her position as Mayor to coerce a public librarian to ban a religious book or any other book based on her religion - much less fire someone. This is not a difficult concept :shrug: But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

[ajmccarrell]

Speaking of which, did you see McCain on The View today :eek:

I thought the audience was going to boo him when he said he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the USSC and that Roe was incorrectly decided.

In the end, if the USSC overturns Roe, the states will then be able to determine abortion rights on there own. The result will be that in NY you can get an abortion while in Colorado, you cannot (hypothetically). Moreover, the Fed. Govt. will never be able to acknowledge the "right to privacy" unless the Congress creates it. It is a completely unworkable system in that a doctor who performs an abortion in one state but lives in another could be tried for murder in the state in which he lives. That's just fukced up. So, the argument that the effect will be that the states dec. for themselves is, at best, a farce and anyone making it knows that or is short sighted fool.

The interesting thing is the R's were so gung ho to usurp Fla.'s soverign right to adjudicate spousal rights in the conext of Terri Schiavo that despite numerous state court rulings in favor of the former husband, the R Congress demanded essentially the same type of right be applied by the Fed. Ct.'s in that case - all in the name of the cash cow known to them as jesus. The true Jesus had nothing to do with it. But, activist courts are okay when it suits your reelection I guess and if you can make a little cash off of it, so be it :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

That's called federalism, where the states do not have a dictatorship of black robed judges. Again, you keep labelling people, IE "fool", etc without really addressing the merits of federalism. I'd support it wholeheartedly. If you want to be an abortion doctor, go to a state that allows it. If you hate abortion, go to a state that disallows it. I mean, you people clamor against people "shoving their views on you" but when an alternative compromise is given where states can choose for themselves, which is real democracy and not the oligarchic system under judges, you are against it. No one did anything in the name "of Jesus" here, McCain's view allowed for both sides to be happy without one or the other imposing their views on the other. Now THAT is "f*cked up" that you don't see that. I guess it's all your way or not at all, screw the rest of us.

[strandinthewind]

That's called federalism, where the states do not have a dictatorship of black robed judges. Again, you keep labelling people, IE "fool", etc without really addressing the merits of federalism. I'd support it wholeheartedly. If you want to be an abortion doctor, go to a state that allows it. If you hate abortion, go to a state that disallows it. I mean, you people clamor against people "shoving their views on you" but when an alternative compromise is given where states can choose for themselves, which is real democracy and not the oligarchic system under judges, you are against it. No one did anything in the name "of Jesus" here, McCain's view allowed for both sides to be happy without one or the other imposing their views on the other. Now THAT is "f*cked up" that you don't see that. I guess it's all your way or not at all, screw the rest of us.

How exactly is Federalism going to work in today's global economy? It can't and you know it. Whatever :rolleyes:

[ajmccarrell]

Do you actually listen to the tripe that comes out of your mouth when you make assinine points like this?

It's called the First Amendment and it prohibits the establishment of a state religion in any context. Therefore, while you and anyone else are free to spout whatever your individual views are without govt. interference (the other part of the First Amendment) -- but Plain cannot use her position as Mayor to coerce a public librarian to ban a religious book or any other book based on her religion - much less fire someone. This is not a difficult concept :shrug: But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

Palin didn't attempt to ban any books. She asked a question and got an earful about the ACLU in response. It was a valid question to ask. She can fire whom she chooses as mayor. The fact that the librarian refuses to back the media's spin on this should say something to you, but no, if she came out and disagreed you'd call her a wingnut too. Libraries are public and are subject to regulation. You can write a book all you want, but it doesn't mean that you are entitled to public support. That isn't a violation of free speech. You need a refresher course on the first amendment. You have a right say anything you want to, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be heard. By your measure, banning people from this website and pornography in public would be violations of the first amendment. The first amendment isn't absolute. Those aren't my words, those are the words of the great liberal judge Oliver Wendell Holmes. I guess Stare Decisis doesn't apply to you.

[ajmccarrell]

How exactly is Federalism going to work in today's global economy? It can't and you know it. Whatever :rolleyes:

Exactly why wouldn't it work? Do you understand what the federalist philosophy is? This coming from the guy who said that the economy was whether or not the government had a surplus or deficit. What do you know about economics? LOL! The US government had a surplus during the depression, so I guess according to you the economy was great. Please try to understand economics before you argue with me about the subject. I didn't take a bunch of post graduate courses in it for no reason.

[strandinthewind]

Exactly why wouldn't it work? Do you understand what the federalist philosophy is? This coming from the guy who said that the economy was whether or not the government had a surplus or deficit. What do you know about economics? LOL! The US government had a surplus during the depression, so I guess according to you the economy was great. Please try to understand economics before you argue with me about the subject. I didn't take a bunch of post graduate courses in it for no reason.

You are becoming tedious.

[strandinthewind]

Palin didn't attempt to ban any books. She asked a question and got an earful about the ACLU in response. It was a valid question to ask. She can fire whom she chooses as mayor. The fact that the librarian refuses to back the media's spin on this should say something to you, but no, if she came out and disagreed you'd call her a wingnut too. Libraries are public and are subject to regulation. You can write a book all you want, but it doesn't mean that you are entitled to public support. That isn't a violation of free speech. You need a refresher course on the first amendment. You have a right say anything you want to, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be heard. By your measure, banning people from this website and pornography in public would be violations of the first amendment. The first amendment isn't absolute. Those aren't my words, those are the words of the great liberal judge Oliver Wendell Holmes. I guess Stare Decisis doesn't apply to you.

Yawn - Poor Palin - everyone is just being mean to her :rolleyes:

For the last time, she cannot fire a public employee for indicating they would not ban a book.

Whatever - argue with yourself since we apparently are all idiots here who cannot rise to your level of acumen.

[ajmccarrell]

You are becoming tedious.

Too tedious?! LOL! No, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[ajmccarrell]

Yawn - Poor Palin - everyone is just being mean to her :rolleyes:

For the last time, she cannot fire a public employee for indicating they would not ban a book.

Whatever - argue with yourself since we apparently are all idiots here who cannot rise to your level of acumen.

Apparently she did fire an employee for doing so.

As far as the last sentence goes, I'm glad you agree with me. :laugh: (JK)

[strandinthewind]

Apparently she did fire an employee for doing so.

You just admitted she did more than ask a hypothetical question. Congrats for seeing the light.

[ajmccarrell]

You just admitted she did more than ask a hypothetical question. Congrats for seeing the light.

I was twisting your words to make a joke and a point. You took me too literally. Not all the facts are out, obviously. The librarian hasn't said anything. Even so, this objection is gross hypocrisy. The left loves to censor religion all the time and praises it as courageous, but someone does something they don't like and they ascribe all sorts of things to it and make comparisons to Hitler. How about this one below!

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2001/junejuly01/barry.html It is free speech, literally at a library and this guy removed all the bricks. This guy was eventually successful in removing the bricks. There was a similar idea in a public park where people could write messages on bricks for a donation to support the park and some guy wrote "Jesus loves you" and they removed it. Hell, you have people trying to remove monuments that have been there for decades.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Mea Culpa :o

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

Mea Culpa :o

Maybe I should sue to remove your Tolkien tagline, since it is rumoured that he was a Christian and your faith offends me. LOL! :nod:

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I think he and C. S. Lewis were rump rangers :cool:

Also, that line is my fav of fav's in the book LOTR. In the movie, it was changed to the more general:

Be silent. And keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.

As for Christianity or any other religion for that matter -- I could give a flying fook what people do, I just do not want them using the govt. to tell me what to do. Same for sex. One can people their bed with sheep for all I care :eek: ( I am joking about the sheep)

I think the reason people are watchful of people like Palin is that people like Palin belong(ed?) to a holy roller church and used their faith to implement political policy in a way that denies or denied people the chance to be free in the library incident, which clearly was what Palin was doing and to think otherwise is silly -- Again, why ask a librarian that in a small town in Alaska :shrug: A good example is gay people. They have been compared by pretty much all organized Christianity and most other religions to abominations. Then, the govt. under W (most recently and most vehemently) persecutes them even more by equating them to pedophiles (the R's seemingly took their cue from the Catholic Church there) , beastiality practicers, and other horrible people. All in the name of some twisted version of God. And, all in an unfair comparison - there is no censent in any of the latter as opposed to the former :shrug: Moreover, when they ask why they cannot have the same govt. given legal rights as heterosexual couples are given SOLELY on the basis of a religious ideal, they are persecuted even more and told that although they pay taxes like all Americans do, they cannot be given the same automatic rights -- again, based solely on a religious ideal. They are told to go hire a lawyer and spend thousands of dollars to get maybe 80% of those rights and of that 80%, almost all can be challenged in court. If you were persecuted like that, you might get a little antsy when something like Palin comes along and starts getting all preachy and then backing off it with a seeming wink and a nod to the religious crazies. That is way I think people never want to hear any religion in political speech. Then, people like you get all up in arms and think people are attacking religion itself when someone says that they do not want religion in politics in any sense. It seems you equate that separation to some version of the complete denial of you or whomever to go to Church and worship watever, however and whenever you want -- I think that logic is a fallacy. I get that Bombay attacks religion itself, but that is a totally different issue than saying religion and politics should not be mixed. You seemingly confuse the two into one though. Many people do that and it is incorrect. Then, gay people see that time and time again, the religious persecution at the pulpit level and political level is voiced the most loud by hypocrites. Again, go worship what you want, just do not make the govt. tell me I have to. Mind you, my point is a true ideal of the lesser govt. movement.

For the life of me, I will never get why, other than money, people feel slighted when the govt. does not validate their religion. Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's :shrug:

[estranged4life]

So, I guess you want to censor people who are for censorship. That makes a lot of sense. LOL! :shrug:

I based my opinion of WHO I vote for UPON THE ISSUES and HOW they APPROACH the 'said' issues...Not SOMEONE's religious background or beliefs. I don't care if someone worships a 'floater in the porcelain God", 'keep that to thyself' and DO the F**Kin' job!!!! Religion should not figure into fixing the countries problem.

And I hate CENSORSHIP!!!! That is why I NEVER voted for a campaign that had the name GORE listed upon it. Tipper "P.O.S." Gore and her PMRC Washington allies were a frikkin' joke TRYING to censor music - whereas all they did accomplish was making songs with "explicit" lyrics easier to locate via the "explicit lyrics" sticker placed upon the album...and musicians LOVED the publicity since it brought in more $$$ for their bank accounts.

Brian "I suffer allergies to Censorship and the Gore's" j.

[ajmccarrell]

^^^^

I think he and C. S. Lewis were rump rangers :cool:

Also, that line is my fav of fav's in the book LOTR. In the movie, it was changed to the more general:

Be silent. And keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.

As for Christianity or any other religion for that matter -- I could give a flying fook what people do, I just do not want them using the govt. to tell me what to do. Same for sex. One can people their bed with sheep for all I care :eek: ( I am joking about the sheep)

I think the reason people are watchful of people like Palin is that people like Palin belong(ed?) to a holy roller church and used their faith to implement political policy in a way that denies or denied people the chance to be free in the library incident, which clearly was what Palin was doing and to think otherwise is silly -- Again, why ask a librarian that in a small town in Alaska :shrug: A good example is gay people. They have been compared by pretty much all organized Christianity and most other religions to abominations. Then, the govt. under W (most recently and most vehemently) persecutes them even more by equating them to pedophiles (the R's seemingly took their cue from the Catholic Church there) , beastiality practicers, and other horrible people. All in the name of some twisted version of God. And, all in an unfair comparison - there is no censent in any of the latter as opposed to the former :shrug: Moreover, when they ask why they cannot have the same govt. given legal rights as heterosexual couples are given SOLELY on the basis of a religious ideal, they are persecuted even more and told that although they pay taxes like all Americans do, they cannot be given the same automatic rights -- again, based solely on a religious ideal. They are told to go hire a lawyer and spend thousands of dollars to get maybe 80% of those rights and of that 80%, almost all can be challenged in court. If you were persecuted like that, you might get a little antsy when something like Palin comes along and starts getting all preachy and then backing off it with a seeming wink and a nod to the religious crazies. That is way I think people never want to hear any religion in political speech. Then, people like you get all up in arms and think people are attacking religion itself when someone says that they do not want religion in politics in any sense. It seems you equate that separation to some version of the complete denial of you or whomever to go to Church and worship watever, however and whenever you want -- I think that logic is a fallacy. I get that Bombay attacks religion itself, but that is a totally different issue than saying religion and politics should not be mixed. You seemingly confuse the two into one though. Many people do that and it is incorrect. Then, gay people see that time and time again, the religious persecution at the pulpit level and political level is voiced the most loud by hypocrites. Again, go worship what you want, just do not make the govt. tell me I have to. Mind you, my point is a true ideal of the lesser govt. movement.

For the life of me, I will never get why, other than money, people feel slighted when the govt. does not validate their religion. Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's :shrug:

I agree on the smaller government thing. I've never understood why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all.

[strandinthewind]

I agree on the smaller government thing. I've never understood why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all.

Ask the R party - they are the ones writing it into constitutions all in the name of inserting religion into politics - all to get votes they IMO saw themselves losing after the spectre of the cold war diminished.

But, the point is that religion has been used so horrbily by the R's for the last 20 + years that people have come to hate it. I can't say I blame them.

Also -- more lies from McCain -- and I cannot believe Palin is trying to sell that she was never for the bridge to nowhere, which I have been to BTW - I saw the exact site :eek: Does she think people are actually buying this shiitte? I just do not get why she does not say she was for it initially, but then thought better of it. What is harm in that?

Palin defends nearly $200M in project requests

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

47 minutes ago

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Friday defended the nearly $200 million in federal pet projects she sought as Alaska governor this year even as John McCain told a television audience she had never requested them.

In the second part of her interview with ABC News, Palin was confronted with two claims that have been a staple of her reputation since joining the GOP ticket: that she was opposed to federal earmarks, even though her request for such special spending projects for 2009 was the highest per capita figure in the nation; and that she opposed the $398 million Bridge to Nowhere linking Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport.

Palin actually turned against the bridge project only after it became a national symbol of wasteful spending and Congress had pulled money for it.

Palin told ABC's Charles Gibson that since she took office, the state had "drastically" reduced its efforts to secure earmarks and would continue to do so while she was governor.

"What I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is, no more," Palin said.

When Gibson noted she had requested money to study the mating habits of crabs and harbor-seal genetic research — the kind of small-bore projects that draw McCain's ire — Palin said the specific requests had come through universities and other public entities and weren't worked out by lobbyists behind closed doors.

On the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin said she had supported a link from the mainland to the airport but not necessarily the costly bridge project.

"It's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget, along with every other state, a share of the federal budget for infrastructure," Palin said.

Palin's comments came after McCain sat for a feisty grilling on ABC's "The View," where he claimed erroneously that his running mate hadn't sought money for such pet projects.

"Not as governor she didn't," McCain said, ignoring the record.

The panel of female hosts also pressed McCain on Palin's religious views, his position on abortion rights and whether he had traded in his maverick ways to placate conservatives.

In Alaska, meanwhile, the investigator looking into whether Palin abused her power as governor in trying to fire her former brother-in-law asked state lawmakers for the power to subpoena Palin's husband, Todd, a dozen others and the phone records of a top aide. The state House and Senate judiciary committees were expected to grant the request.

Palin was in Alaska on Friday and scheduled to attend a campaign rally in Nevada on Saturday while McCain took the day off, a reflection of her growing status as the GOP ticket's celebrity draw.

Palin had kind words for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, months after suggesting that Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination had been whining about tough press coverage.

"What determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way — she handled those well," Palin told ABC News.

In March, Palin was asked about coverage of Clinton at a Newsweek forum, and said: "Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean, you gotta plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into ... when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'That doesn't do us any good — women in politics."

On "The View," McCain said that Palin had "ignited a spark" among voters but acknowledged they parted ways on certain issues. The Arizona has said human behavior is largely responsible for climate change and opposes drilling for oil in a federally protected refuge, for example.

McCain appeared to back off a bit from his claim that Palin was the best vice presidential pick in U.S. history when he joked, "We politicians are never given to exaggeration or hyperbole."

The GOP hopeful also stood by two debunked campaign commercials — one which said Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students and another that suggested Obama had called Palin a pig. Both are factually inaccurate.

Obama, as an Illinois state senator, voted for legislation that would teach age-appropriate sex education to kindergartners, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators. And while Obama told a campaign rally this week that McCain's policies were like "putting lipstick on a pig," he never used the phrase in connection with Palin.

"Those ads aren't true. They're lies," said "View" co-host Joy Behar.

"They're not lies," McCain said, insisting that Obama "chooses his words very carefully" and should never had made the lipstick remark.

McCain defended Palin's conservative religious views but said as president he would maintain a clear separation of church and state. To a smattering of boos, he reiterated his opposition to Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion rights.

McCain looked irked when Behar asked him whether he had jettisoned his independence as a candidate by appearing to be in "lock step" with President Bush's policies.

"What specific area have I, quote, 'changed?' Nobody can name it," McCain said.

McCain has changed positions on significant issues. For example, he once opposed Bush's tax cuts but now supports making them permanent. He had opposed lifting the ban on additional offshore oil exploration but now calls for drilling off the U.S. coast. He had been against mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions but now favors them.

___

Associated Press writer Garance Burke in Wasilla, Alaska, contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_republicans

______________________________________

[strandinthewind]

Here is the clip from The View - note the scattered booing

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

BTW - his view of the USSC has been incorrect since 1803. And, that is a gross simplification of the implication of the overturning of Roe. In the end, what will happen is that abortion will be for the rich even in the four or five states that may allow it :shrug:

Also, all that "I repsect other people' views" is BS. It is lip service. He will appoint judges that will overturn the right to privacy, which BTW you never responded to my argument on the positive results of despite the means. IMO the correct and Constitutional thing to say is that I believe life begins at conception, but that is my opinion and as long as there is no definitive answer, I respect the right of an American woman to belive differently and take control of her own body. I think she is wring, but that is between her and her maker. The govt. should stay out of it - again me with the lesser govt, thing.

Finally, Cindy McCain came across like a snob with her refusal to answer the question about how many houses they have. Last I checked, the assets of the Pres. are the business of the American people in that the Pres. must make an accounting. Will they refuse to name their assets then?

On edit --

Just exactly how is the VP going to reform the govt.? The VP has no power. Granted Cheney did, but that was because he was controlling things. I also love that McCain had no coherent answer and the specifics he gave were misleading and inaccurate. And, this wants to be Pres. :eek:

I have to say the women of The View totally henpecked him :laugh:

[iamnotafraid]

In the end, this c*nt is Falwell with a vagina.


Come on Strand I think you're better than this. We all have our different points of views, and I enjoy the debates and some of the jabs. But there is so much hate on this board. This thread and the "Palin Racist" thread are prime examples of the extreme hate shown towards Conservatives and Christians.

I hope we can all debate or poke fun at others we disagree (or agree with for that matter), but maybe do it with a little less hatred.

My 2 cents.

[strandinthewind]

Nah - called it as I saw it.

She reminds me of the hypocritical self righteous and I cannot stand.

Also, it seems to me that you are confusing the hatred of religion with religion out of politics. Saying the govt. does not have any business in religion in no way lessens anyones' individual right to practice their religion. Many confuse this point.

In the end though, if you were persecuted and in some instances killed in the name of a twisted version of God, you might have a different take on religion in politics. So, I get why people hate religion.

Finally, I likely am way more conservative than anyone on this board. But, because I want religion nowhere in govt., I do not fit into the neocon version of conservative.

[Dreamz19]

Ask the R party - they are the ones writing it into constitutions all in the name of inserting religion into politics - all to get votes they IMO saw themselves losing after the spectre of the cold war diminished.

But, the point is that religion has been used so horrbily by the R's for the last 20 + years that people have come to hate it. I can't say I blame them.

I'm a Christian and I couldn't agree with this statement more. The hypocrisy of these
so called Christian republicans embarrasses me just about everytime they open their mouths up about it.

[gldstwmn]

You complain about censorship of your views, but several times since I made my post, the rest of you wanted to censor Palin and her views, as well as mine. You guys are ridiculous. I mean, what is "religion should stay out of politics" if not censorship? LOL! You guys are as bad as you make her out to be. Good job! :thumbsup:

No one is trying to censor Palin. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

I'm a Christian and I couldn't agree with this statement more. The hypocrisy of these
so called Christian republicans embarrasses me just about everytime they open their mouths up about it.

I have often said that I think Christ would be horrified at what has been done in His name. I know I am and I hardly am Christ.

In the end and to quote John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Regardless of anyone's belief in this event, the fact that any father would send his son to be sacrificed to save a certain people is, at the least, a stunning metaphor. Yet, all the R's can do is distort that and all but completely ignore Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and peace. Instead, they cherry pick things and use them to judge and hurt people who are already the least amongst us. It sickens me. What sickens me more is people are being turned off of faith of any kind, not just my own. Again, it has become even more of the "if you want to fill your pew, preach hate" kind of world. How is that Christlike?

On edit - another example of this faction of so called Christians raising the persecution flag when religion is taken out of govt, but the right to practice religion on your own is untouched, was when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore placement (in the dark of night like he had something to hide) a 2.6-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building. He used public funds for this monument and made no bones about his reasons for putting it there - he incorrectly equated the decalogue with American law (only two or so are actually against the law) - and he incorrectly stated them at that. When a Federal Court correctly ruled this violated the First Amendment's establishment clause andordered its immediate removal, Moore responded:

"It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge,"

The far Christian right echoed that response by arguing that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system (an incorrect argument - see the Magna Carta) and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion (another incorrect argument in that the right to worship privately was untouched).

Judge Moore clearly placed the monument there as a fu*k you to anyone who was not a Christian - how dare they come into the Christian land and expect any rights. Any other interpretation of this event clearly is ridiculous. Then, he had the effrontery to suggest that the Federal Govt. was somehow denying his right to worship God by ordering the monument removed. That makes no sense because he has the same right to worship his god in private whether that monument is there or not. Why does he need the Fed or state Governments to validate his religion. Is he that insecure in his religion?

Yet, a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found 77 percent of the 1,009 Americans interviewed disapproved of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument. That people need government validation of religion that overwhelmingly both baffles and horrifies me. Are people that brainwashed so that they think that if the govt. does not validate their religion, there is something wrong or that their right to worship privately is in any way diminished?

[strandinthewind]

No one is trying to censor Palin. :confused:

I know. His argument makes no sense. Once again, he ignores the main point, which he cannot win, and instead makes these irrelevant and untrue points to try to hide that fact.

As for Palin, she can say what she wants. What I can't stand is the obvious speaking in code and doubletalk. If you want a librarian to ban a book that you feel is inappropriate, be proud of it and say it out loud. Don't use innuendo and back room tactics that cheapen the value of your view all in an attempt to stay in power and, in the end, obtain power and money. What a hypocrit.

Ditto for McCain saying he wants to leave it up to the states to determine the right to privacy and that he respects others' views that differ from his. He and everyone with an IQ over 65 knows this is utter crapola. Have the sand to say you hate abortion and when it is left up to the states you will appoint judges who will ban it and you will openly lobby for the states to ban it as well - say "I hate it, it is wrong, and I want it to end because my religion demands it." Though I'd disagree with this latter position, I'd at least have some respect for the man because he actually stated something concrete insead of all his hypocritcal doublespeak.

Another example on the other side was Clinton. I think if he had said, yea I got a hummer from the fat chick, I like to fool around and it really is none of your business - so piss off -- things would have been different. Instead he lied and covered up and it cost him and us dearly in the end.

[ajmccarrell]

Here is the clip from The View - note the scattered booing

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

BTW - his view of the USSC has been incorrect since 1803. And, that is a gross simplification of the implication of the overturning of Roe. In the end, what will happen is that abortion will be for the rich even in the four or five states that may allow it :shrug:

Also, all that "I repsect other people' views" is BS. It is lip service. He will appoint judges that will overturn the right to privacy, which BTW you never responded to my argument on the positive results of despite the means. IMO the correct and Constitutional thing to say is that I believe life begins at conception, but that is my opinion and as long as there is no definitive answer, I respect the right of an American woman to belive differently and take control of her own body. I think she is wring, but that is between her and her maker. The govt. should stay out of it - again me with the lesser govt, thing.

Finally, Cindy McCain came across like a snob with her refusal to answer the question about how many houses they have. Last I checked, the assets of the Pres. are the business of the American people in that the Pres. must make an accounting. Will they refuse to name their assets then?

On edit --

Just exactly how is the VP going to reform the govt.? The VP has no power. Granted Cheney did, but that was because he was controlling things. I also love that McCain had no coherent answer and the specifics he gave were misleading and inaccurate. And, this wants to be Pres. :eek:

I have to say the women of The View totally henpecked him :laugh:


Well, I've heard it from several lawyers all the way from a Yale grad to the company counsel that sits in the office next to mine that McCain's interpretation is correct because the states had control of the issue before Roe. Overturning it would simply put it back to the states. Also, I would assume you know that when overturning a law, it doesn't always reverse it back to zero, there is room for nuance in the final orders. I did respond to your statement on the ends justifying the means and I said what I thought, which was something along the lines of "this car is great, despite the number of wrecks its been in." No, I don't believe in an inherent right to privacy. The job of the VP is up to the VP and the president. There is no defined job. I see this ticket as being a reincarnation of the Eisenhower-Nixon administration. Nixon was an excellent VP because he was a great bully and I think Palin can do that for McCain. McCain is usually too nice to people, much like Eisenhower.

As far as the rest of it goes, it's just your opinion and you have a right to it. It's why McCain has a limp.

[ajmccarrell]

I have often said that I think Christ would be horrified at what has been done in His name. I know I am and I hardly am Christ.

In the end and to quote John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Regardless of anyone's belief in this event, the fact that any father would send his son to be sacrificed to save a certain people is, at the least, a stunning metaphor. Yet, all the R's can do is distort that and all but completely ignore Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and peace. Instead, they cherry pick things and use them to judge and hurt people who are already the least amongst us. It sickens me. What sickens me more is people are being turned off of faith of any kind, not just my own. Again, it has become even more of the "if you want to fill your pew, preach hate" kind of world. How is that Christlike?


As far as I can tell, you're taking the actions of a few people and painting an entire religion with a broad brush. You never cite examples that any more than a few people actually "hate" anyone from the church. I left the church years ago, but I still don't appreciate people spreading lies. Jesus would be horrified, especially because he never asked anyone to worship him. We totally misunderstand his role, which was not "God substitute" but that of the Memre or of the Metatron in the Talmud. The entirety of Christianity follows lies (IE Sunday Worship, an absence of Law, pagan holidays, evil doctrines), but you spread lies about them.

[ajmccarrell]

No one is trying to censor Palin. :confused:

Oprah sure is. The media and liberal bloggers, such as yourselves, have been trying to silence Palin by smearing her. Censorship by any other name is still censorship.

[ajmccarrell]

I know. His argument makes no sense. Once again, he ignores the main point, which he cannot win, and instead makes these irrelevant and untrue points to try to hide that fact.

As for Palin, she can say what she wants. What I can't stand is the obvious speaking in code and doubletalk. If you want a librarian to ban a book that you feel is inappropriate, be proud of it and say it out loud. Don't use innuendo and back room tactics that cheapen the value of your view all in an attempt to stay in power and, in the end, obtain power and money. What a hypocrit.

Ditto for McCain saying he wants to leave it up to the states to determine the right to privacy and that he respects others' views that differ from his. He and everyone with an IQ over 65 knows this is utter crapola. Have the sand to say you hate abortion and when it is left up to the states you will appoint judges who will ban it and you will openly lobby for the states to ban it as well - say "I hate it, it is wrong, and I want it to end because my religion demands it." Though I'd disagree with this latter position, I'd at least have some respect for the man because he actually stated something concrete insead of all his hypocritcal doublespeak.

Another example on the other side was Clinton. I think if he had said, yea I got a hummer from the fat chick, I like to fool around and it really is none of your business - so piss off -- things would have been different. Instead he lied and covered up and it cost him and us dearly in the end.

The media is less trying to censor Palin as much as try as hard as they can to smear her. Again, the rest of this is opinion. I take it you didn't watch Saddleback. McCain clearly articulated his policies and religious point of view. I remember you turning on Rick Warren as an excuse to dismiss it. Ad homonym, an illogical argument. The Clinton thing was never really about sex, it was about him lying about it. He was impeached for purjury, not for having an affair. The media loved the sex part and spread it around. I agree with your opinion above about respecting Clinton if he had just told the truth. Also, please learn to spell. Not everyone works for the government, so we haven't mastered the ability to spell in abreviated sentences, while balancing coffee and crosswords. :)

[strandinthewind]

Well, I've heard it from several lawyers all the way from a Yale grad to the company counsel that sits in the office next to mine that McCain's interpretation is correct because the states had control of the issue before Roe. Overturning it would simply put it back to the states. Also, I would assume you know that when overturning a law, it doesn't always reverse it back to zero, there is room for nuance in the final orders . . . .

Of course it would go back to the states. No one is saying it will not. But, it does not end there, which is what you are implying if not stating. Are you actually arguing the R party will not then vehemently advocate the states ban it "eek." I think you know better than that.

Again, if you are for less govt., then why would you advocate the govt. (state of federal) telling a woman what to do with her body?

Interestingly, if the Congress or a state legis. passed a law allowing abortion, would you be for getting some court to overturn the law?

. . . I did respond to your statement on the ends justifying the means and I said what I thought, which was something along the lines of "this car is great, despite the number of wrecks its been in." No, I don't believe in an inherent right to privacy . . . .

I did not see that. And, if you do not believe in the right to privacy, then what do you believe in? Do you actually think the Const. or any of the papers surrounding its creation fail to support the right to privacy? If you are for less govt., that belief is founded on a right to privacy is it not?

. . . The job of the VP is up to the VP and the president. There is no defined job. I see this ticket as being a reincarnation of the Eisenhower-Nixon administration. Nixon was an excellent VP because he was a great bully and I think Palin can do that for McCain. McCain is usually too nice to people, much like Eisenhower . . . .

My point was as VP, Palin has no Constitutional power to change anything. So, all this talk about her is meaningless. It is, IMO, a rather obvious attempt to take the focus off of McCain and his 95% voting with W record.

I take it you like Palin. That is strange because she is for more govt. interference in our lives. Her history clearly dictates that she wants religion to control us - she wants to make religion the rule of law in stark violation of the First Amendment. Or, do you think that establishing a religion is okay? If you do, Palin is your candidate despite your professed want of less govt.

. . . As far as the rest of it goes, it's just your opinion and you have a right to it. It's why McCain has a limp.

Do not try to haul out the war veteran card with me in an attempt to make your argument. McCain served his country in an honorable manner and I and everyone owes him a huge thank you. So, thank you McCain! But, that service does not de facto allow him to throw away the Constitution and then shove his religious beliefs down my throat.

Interestingly, were you this gung ho about service records when Kerry ran for office, much less the smearing of Max Cleland? After all, they served their country honorably as well, but got little to no respect from the R's for it. Instead, the R's fuly supported W, whose service record was, to be kind, less than stellar, and Cheney, who "had more important thing to do" than serve.

More to the point though - do you actually think that the far Christian right will have any rest until the Fed. Govt. is a religious entity. I just do not get how you can be for less govt. and still support these people, which is what you are doing when you support the current R party. While Obama's plan taxes the rich a little more (please do not haul out that BS economic argument again :rolleyes: ) Obama's plan is much less govt. interference with our private lives. To say otherwise distorts the truth - and I am no fan of Obama's.

In the end, even if everyone is paying a little more, I'd rather pay a little more tax and be left alone. I am at a loss why you would not want to either.

[strandinthewind]

The media is less trying to censor Palin as much as try as hard as they can to smear her. Again, the rest of this is opinion . . . .

No, the media is stating facts about her. McCain and the R party are trying to prevent the discovery of those facts. Do you think the media should not be presenting the book banning and other articles for discussion? Also, they are portraying them in a fair manner.

Smearing someone is what McCain is doing to Obama with the lipstick on a pig ad and the Obama wants to teach sex ed to 8 year old ads. Those were utter crapola - but you likely will never admit that.

. . . I remember you turning on Rick Warren as an excuse to dismiss it . . . .

I did this? Please show me where.

Do you actually believe these people when they say they will not force religion down our throats. If so, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :wavey: To prove my point, look at gay marriage and the R position on it. The R's and McCain are using their religion in that instance to prevent rights in that there is no argument other than religion for preventing it. I get that you and I think that marriage should not be in the law. However, it is and the R's want it there to create more of a religious state.

. . . The Clinton thing was never really about sex, it was about him lying about it. He was impeached for purjury, not for having an affair. The media loved the sex part and spread it around. I agree with your opinion above about respecting Clinton if he had just told the truth . . . .

Yes, Clinton was properly impeached. However, I do think that the hundreds of millions spent by the witch hunting R's resulted in a bunch of BS. They could not prove anything they set out to prove and all we got for our money was a man lying about getting a hummer from a fat chick. Was it worth all that time and money? I think not? It was a vendeta, pure and simple.

. . . Also, please learn to spell . . . .

I am a lousy typist :cool:

[strandinthewind]

As far as I can tell, you're taking the actions of a few people and painting an entire religion with a broad brush. You never cite examples that any more than a few people actually "hate" anyone from the church. I left the church years ago, but I still don't appreciate people spreading lies. Jesus would be horrified, especially because he never asked anyone to worship him. We totally misunderstand his role, which was not "God substitute" but that of the Memre or of the Metatron in the Talmud. The entirety of Christianity follows lies (IE Sunday Worship, an absence of Law, pagan holidays, evil doctrines), but you spread lies about them.

The Christian far right is in power and they want more. That is why I address them in this political thread.

But, to pacify you, as I have repeatedly said before, I think religion is a great thing. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to practice it, which is what the Christian far right is trying to do with people like Palin. Yet, you give her a pass for that, which rather defies belief as you say you are against more govt.

No one here should ever take my attacks on govt. in religion as an attack on the individual right to worship on your own. I think I have said this like 50 times now :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Oprah sure is. The media and liberal bloggers, such as yourselves, have been trying to silence Palin by smearing her. Censorship by any other name is still censorship.

So, if they should print her history (a big if according to you) - then Americans should just read what she has said and have no discussion or thought about it because that discussion or thought will lead to opinions, which you apparently equate to smearing, which is the same as censorship to you? Or, maybe just the favorable opinions should be allowed.

Again, utter crapola.

[gldstwmn]

Another example on the other side was Clinton. I think if he had said, yea I got a hummer from the fat chick, I like to fool around and it really is none of your business - so piss off -- things would have been different. Instead he lied and covered up and it cost him and us dearly in the end.

True. I mean look at Obama's past drug use. He admitted it and now the story is over and done with.

[gldstwmn]

Oprah sure is. The media and liberal bloggers, such as yourselves, have been trying to silence Palin by smearing her. Censorship by any other name is still censorship.

Oprah? The same Oprah that had Arnold Schwarzenegger on her show? It's her show, not the nightly news so Oprah can do what she wants with it. If Sarah Barracuda can't stand the heat from Charlie Gibson then she'd have a hell of a time on Oprah. Oprah's doing her a favor.
I didn't know I was a "liberal blogger."

[Sorceress]

Catching up on this thread has been interesting. One thing stuck out to me:

McCain is usually too nice to people, much like Eisenhower.


Really? I've never heard anyone call McCain too nice before. If anything, he's infamous for his temper. Of course, in this campaign, he has to hide that aspect of his personality and thus needs a nasty surrogate--Sarah Barracuda.

Here's the first thing that comes up when you google "McCain temper:" http://blog.case.edu/conservativemovement/2008/01/29/john_mccains_top_ten_temper_explosions

[Dreamz19]

Oprah? The same Oprah that had Arnold Scharwenegger on her show? It's her show, not the nightly news so Oprah can do what she wants with it. If Sarah Barracuda can't stand the heat from Charlie Gibson then she'd have a hell of a time on Oprah. Oprah's doing her a favor.
I didn't know I was a "liberal blogger."

Oprah even had Bush on her show back in 2000. However, she hasn't had any canadiate on her show this election. The last time Obama was there was back in 2006.

[Mad4stevie]

I thought the audience was going to boo him when he said he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the USSC and that Roe was incorrectly decided.

In the end, if the USSC overturns Roe, the states will then be able to determine abortion rights on there own. The result will be that in NY you can get an abortion while in Colorado, you cannot (hypothetically). Moreover, the Fed. Govt. will never be able to acknowledge the "right to privacy" unless the Congress creates it. It is a completely unworkable system in that a doctor who performs an abortion in one state but lives in another could be tried for murder in the state in which he lives. That's just fukced up. So, the argument that the effect will be that the states dec. for themselves is, at best, a farce and anyone making it knows that or is short sighted fool.

I really do not understand how people get so wrapped up in the abortion views of the Presidential hopefulls. Everyone panics about this topic. I feel that there is no way that Roe will be overturned. My God, for this to actually happen there are so many variables that would need to fall into place. Even with the right of the President to appoint judges, it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent. Even with the conservative Republican presidents that we have had over the last 25+ years, and their numerous appointments to the Court, there has not been any ability to change things in this area.

To overturn Roe would be to essentially overturn many other rulings that are based on that same penumbra right to privacy, which started its life in the 1960's. I cannot invision a court who would overturn this general precedent.

When people use this topic as a way to polarize voters, they do it because it is a sure way to get people fired up and emotional. Many people have no idea about how the government works in this area - I have seen this time and time again in the college classroom. People think that if a candidate says he is pro-life, he will just pass a law that will restrict abortion. :rolleyes:

States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

[gldstwmn]

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?af2c813e" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=61410aa4ff" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=61410aa4ff" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf?af2c813e" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><div style="text-align:center;width: 464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/gina_gershon">Gina Gershon</a> videos at Funny or Die</div>

[gldstwmn]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ALsjhDDdaA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ALsjhDDdaA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[strandinthewind]

I really do not understand how people get so wrapped up in the abortion views of the Presidential hopefulls. Everyone panics about this topic. I feel that there is no way that Roe will be overturned. My God, for this to actually happen there are so many variables that would need to fall into place. Even with the right of the President to appoint judges, it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent. Even with the conservative Republican presidents that we have had over the last 25+ years, and their numerous appointments to the Court, there has not been any ability to change things in this area.

To overturn Roe would be to essentially overturn many other rulings that are based on that same penumbra right to privacy, which started its life in the 1960's. I cannot invision a court who would overturn this general precedent.

When people use this topic as a way to polarize voters, they do it because it is a sure way to get people fired up and emotional. Many people have no idea about how the government works in this area - I have seen this time and time again in the college classroom. People think that if a candidate says he is pro-life, he will just pass a law that will restrict abortion. :rolleyes:

States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

With respect, I think you are incorrect.

I think one more conservative Justice and Roe is gone. Can you honestly say that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts are not going to vote to overturn Roe? I suppose it is fair to say the last two are somewhat untested in the USSC (but not elsewhere). But, Scalia and his lapdog Thomas have clearly demonstrated they want Roe and the entire Right to Privacy gone and they have consistently votes as such :shrug:

From a practicle point of view, it would be a horrible thing in its ripple effects that you noticed. The only certain thing is that it will fill the coffers of both parties for decades as it has done in the past.

In the end, you are correct, the Pres. will never have the power to pass a Federal Law banning abortion. The power of the Pres on this issue mainly exists in the power to appoint members of the Court and, as mentioned above, all it will take is one more appointment, which almost certainly will happen in the next four years with Kennedy at 72 years old and, mor eimportantly, Stevens at 88 years old.

So, to suggest that "it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent" is, with repsect, incorrect.

As for precedent itself, I think most judges and Justices use that when it is convenient, sort of like the term "strict construction" and "states rights" a la the R party trying to usurp the power of state of Florida in the Terri Schiavo matter. Regardless of whether the Florida courts were correct, the decision was solely within the jurisdiction of Florida in that case. But, the R's could not abide that. The R's saw the religious cash cow the issue presented as well as the wrath and potential loss of the Christian far right on which they based their hold on power. So, the R's used the Federal Courts to try and overturn Florida Law. So, I think precedent is used in a similar manner.

[strandinthewind]

. . . States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

. . . subject to Federal Review and existing Federal law. Without this Federal Law, clearly the majority of states would ban abortion and the right to privacy. Women will die as a result. Civil Rights will diminish as a result.

With respect, are you actually believing this? I know you are pretty conservative, but clearly you know the law better than this :shrug:

Also, how are ya?

[mylittledemon]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so. How many of us would mock a child when he or she says they believe in Santa Claus? Maybe Santa Claus IS real.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.

I also strongly believe that we shouldn't presume to know what the will of God is, unless he comes down to speak to you personally in front of lots of people. It's when you start using God as a means to your own gain (Whats that guy? Smiling Preacher Osteen?), to pass your own legislature (Ahem...Jessie Helms), or affect your law making decisions that this becomes a scarier issue.

I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs.

So what if God is real? Sit and ponder on that thought for a moment. What if God IS real and everything that you fight so strongly against believing is actually real. Maybe you choose not to believe because of what happened to you in your past. How can a loving God allow so much suffering and war to take place? Now, here we've come full circle...none of us can presume to know the will of God is. We may never get those answers in this life. But maybe you can presume to know what the will of God is for your own life. And there's nothing wrong with believing in that.

I went a bit off topic there...I know the original topic was Palin. I'm not necessarily supporting her, just her right to believe what she wants to.

[strandinthewind]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so.

. . .

I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs. [/QUOTE]

No one I know is saying that any American does not have the right to worship whatever, however, and whenever they want. Therefore, there is no loss of personal religious freedom :shrug:

The sole arguement is against people like Palin forcing another American to believe what they believe. Palin has demonstrated a propensity to this by saying she wants to appoint judges who will overturn Roe and that she does not believe in abortion in any instance. That is putting her religious beliefs into law

She also fired a librarian for saying he would not ban a book that went against her religious beliefs. Once again, that is putting her religious beliefs into law :shrug: Moreover, it is taking away the religious freedomn of others by denying them access to a books that support their religions.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.

With respect, the majority of Americans wants slavery, they wanted to deny women the right to vote, etc. :shrug:

It's when you start using God as a means to your own gain (Whats that guy? Smiling Preacher Osteen?), to pass your own legislature (Ahem...Jessie Helms), or affect your law making decisions that this becomes a scarier issue.

I'd ad to that list firing a librarian because they said they would not ban a book that she found to be contrary to her religious beliefs :shrug:

. . . just her right to believe what she wants to.

I totally agree she is perfectly entitled to believe what she wants to believe, but she is taking a step further as discussed above.

I also think that when she invokes the name of God, she is doing so for one purpose, which is to excite the far Christian right, of which she is member. To imply that is wrong for the mid to left wing people to call her on that or term it as "viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so" is incorrect.

In the end, the sooner religion is out of public law, the freer we all will be to worship as we choose. Yet, when I say that, people automatically presume I hate God, never go to Church, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[strandinthewind]

. . . So what if God is real? Sit and ponder on that thought for a moment. What if God IS real and everything that you fight so strongly against believing is actually real. Maybe you choose not to believe because of what happened to you in your past. How can a loving God allow so much suffering and war to take place? Now, here we've come full circle...none of us can presume to know the will of God is. We may never get those answers in this life. But maybe you can presume to know what the will of God is for your own life. And there's nothing wrong with believing in that . . . .

I agree that there is nothing wrong with believing in God. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to. Those are wildly different issues and America was founded on the very idea that people should be free to worship without govt. intrusion. Palin and the R party are not upholding that ideal in any way though they may gove it lip service :shrug:

[mylittledemon]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with believing in God. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to. Those are wildly different issues and America was founded on the very idea that people should be free to worship without govt. intrusion. Palin and the R party are not upholding that ideal in any way though they may gove it lip service :shrug:

Good Lord...8 years on here and I still cant figure out how to do the damn quotes...

I should've started off by saying, I didnt mean to say that these were PALIN's beliefs. Everything I said was just my 2 cents on the matter.

The majority of Americans want slaves and want women to not be able to vote? What century are we living in? Where are these people? If this is true, it's just one more reason I don't want to live in this country anymore.

If you take "religion" completely out of public law...then anyone who holds an office would have to be an agnostic. If you believe in God, it's part of the fiber of your being. It's going to affect what you believe, maybe some of the choices and decisions you have to make. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you're going to vote against it. If the majority of Americans say abortion is legal, then it should stay that way. Some things you just can't change because you feel it's wrong. Let it be on the abortionist heads if that's how you feel about it.

[BombaySapphire3]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so. How many of us would mock a child when he or she says they believe in Santa Claus? Maybe Santa Claus IS real.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.



I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs.

If an adult in a leadership position in this country wishes to believe in Santa Claus that is fine by me ..however when that belief impacts my life by their legislating how they think I should live my life according to the teachings of Santa Claus then I have a problem .By you stating you don't think an atheist or agnostic should be in public office you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of..major discrimination.I think people should be allowed to believe or worship how they wish ..ie: I could care less if Obama is indeed a Moslem ..I like his policies so I'll vote for him as long as his beliefs don't affect his policies in a way that curtails the freedom of others..I or most non believers are not trying to thearten your religious freedom..we just don't want your religion threatening our freedom ..If you want to see how a theocracy works I'd suggest a trip to Iran.

[strandinthewind]

The majority of Americans want slaves and want women to not be able to vote? What century are we living in? Where are these people? If this is true, it's just one more reason I don't want to live in this country anymore.

This was the tenor of the times when these were the big issues. My point was public opinion rarely is for change :shrug:

If you take "religion" completely out of public law...then anyone who holds an office would have to be an agnostic.

No. America is guided by the rule of law, which stems from the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the establishment of a religion.

If you believe in God, it's part of the fiber of your being. It's going to affect what you believe. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you're going to vote against it. If the majority of Americans say abortion is legal, then it should stay that way. Some things you just can't change because you feel it's wrong. Let it be on the abortionist heads if that's how you feel about it.

Well, no. At least no in the sense that the fiber of your being cannot be against the law, which is that the govt. cannot establish a religion.

Again, I think you, like many, confuse this with me or anyone else telling you it is not okay to be a Christian. Put it this way, what if a Wiccan took office? Would it be okay for them to vote as a Wiccan on every issue? Of course it would not be okay. So, why is it okay for a Christian to do that?

Note - I am not slamming you - just pointing out why America is governed by the rule of law, which often is contrary to public opinion. The alternative is a mob rules mentality, which is great when it goes your way :eek:

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?

[mylittledemon]

If an adult in a leadership position in this country wishes to believe in Santa Claus that is fine by me ..however when that belief impacts my life by their legislating how they think I should live my life according to the teachings of Santa Claus then I have a problem .By you stating you don't think an atheist or agnostic should be in public office you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of..major discrimination.I think people should be allowed to believe or worship how they wish ..ie: I could care less if Obama is indeed a Moslem ..I like his policies so I'll vote for him as long as his beliefs don't affect his policies in a way that curtails the freedom of others..I or most non believers are not trying to thearten your religious freedom..we just don't want your religion threatening our freedom ..If you want to see how a theocracy works I'd suggest a trip to Iran.

Well I'm not going out and voting against atheist and hunting down agnostics wherever they may hide! hahaha...that would be silly. It's simply my own personal belief. But I'm not going to go out stomping all the God-hatin' politicians. That would be the "major discriminating." Thoughts and actions are what we're talking about here.

I could get into a bigger argument over what "religion" and God are but I think I've made the mistake of going down that road before and it's an argument that seemingly is just for arguments sake. I can't make anyone see it, or feel the way I feel about it. We're all in our own comfort zone bubbles.

[mylittledemon]

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?

Of course. I can't figure out the quoting thing on here half the time. I'm clueless on occasion. I like your signature by the way. Gandalf is the man.

[mylittledemon]

This was the tenor of the times when these were the big issues. My point was public opinion rarely is for change :shrug:



No. America is guided by the rule of law, which stems from the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the establishment of a religion.



Well, no. At least no in the sense that the fiber of your being cannot be against the law, which is that the govt. cannot establish a religion.

Again, I think you, like many, confuse this with me or anyone else telling you it is not okay to be a Christian. Put it this way, what if a Wiccan took office? Would it be okay for them to vote as a Wiccan on every issue? Of course it would not be okay. So, why is it okay for a Christian to do that?

Note - I am not slamming you - just pointing out why America is governed by the rule of law, which often is contrary to public opinion. The alternative is a mob rules mentality, which is great when it goes your way :eek:

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?

I thought the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a "nationalized" religion? You know, one that everyone is forced to follow..? I don't see that happening at the moment.

I understand fully what you are saying...and I see your point made in the Wiccan comment. However most of the issues that people are voting on cannot be made to "Vote Christian" or "Vote Muslim"...however if your religious belief is affect your voting one way or the other...then we have no laws against that. See the fine line we're riding here?

[David]

I support a town ordinance here requiring all businesses & individuals to keep the Sabbath.

[mylittledemon]

I support a town ordinance here requiring all businesses & individuals to keep the Sabbath.

Hey, so does Chik-Fil-A!

[Mad4stevie]

With respect, I think you are incorrect.

I think one more conservative Justice and Roe is gone. Can you honestly say that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts are not going to vote to overturn Roe? I suppose it is fair to say the last two are somewhat untested in the USSC (but not elsewhere). But, Scalia and his lapdog Thomas have clearly demonstrated they want Roe and the entire Right to Privacy gone and they have consistently votes as such :shrug:

I have no qualms in admitting that if Scalia had his way, Roe would be overturned. However, I don't see Alito and Roberts in quite the same way, as they did not join in the concurring opinion in the Gonzales case, which provided for a much more rigid stance on abortion. They certainly could have taken more of a stand in that case, but in the end did follow the current precedent as outlinned in the Casey case of the early 1990's.

[strandinthewind]

I thought the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a "nationalized" religion? You know, one that everyone is forced to follow..? I don't see that happening at the moment.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment and just about all of the docs surrounding the formation of the US Cont. specifically prohibit the Govt. from establishing a national religion. This means that the govt. cannot put religion into law. In other words, what is the difference between having a nationally sanctioned religion and having various laws based solely on religious ideals with no nationally sanctioned religion. There is no difference.

I understand fully what you are saying...and I see your point made in the Wiccan comment. However most of the issues that people are voting on cannot be made to "Vote Christian" or "Vote Muslim"...however if your religious belief is affect your voting one way or the other...then we have no laws against that. See the fine line we're riding here?

I see that. However, I also think an elected official should be able to say "You know I do not personally believe in that, but I realize I have no right to put my personal beliefs into law because doing so would violate the rights of Americans who think and believe differently than I do." I mean how hard is that :shrug:

[Mad4stevie]

. . . subject to Federal Review and existing Federal law. Without this Federal Law, clearly the majority of states would ban abortion and the right to privacy. Women will die as a result. Civil Rights will diminish as a result.

With respect, are you actually believing this? I know you are pretty conservative, but clearly you know the law better than this :shrug:

Also, how are ya?

Of course, subject to federal review . . . that is how the Casey case made it to the SC - based on the PA spousal and parental notification provisions in the law.

Yes, I am conservative, and I do come from a religious upbringing, but I have learned to separate my personal opinion from what I think the Constitution provides for, especially in this instance. I personally do not agree with abortion and do feel that it is a life that is being terminated, and I could never personally have one; HOWEVER, I do feel that it is a privacy right that is protected by the Constitution and it should never be outlawed. I do believe in some restrictions, however, such as the ban on partial birth abortions.

On the other note - I am busy getting back to teaching my law classes. Still love it three years later and still much happier than when I was practicing family law.

[strandinthewind]

I have no qualms in admitting that if Scalia had his way, Roe would be overturned. However, I don't see Alito and Roberts in quite the same way, as they did not join in the concurring opinion in the Gonzales case, which provided for a much more rigid stance on abortion. They certainly could have taken more of a stand in that case, but in the end did follow the current precedent as outlinned in the Casey case of the early 1990's.

I sort of agree with you regarding Alito, but Roberts has repeatedly said that Roe was incorrectly deceided and it should be overturned :shrug:

In Gonzales, Kennedy assumed for the purposes of that opinion that the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Caseywere applicable and then he applied them. Moveover, the Court in Gonzales found Congress had the power to ban the partial birth abortion procedure.

So, while Alito and Roberts did not join in the concurrence of Scalia and, of course Thomas (does Thomas ever have an original thought :laugh: ) -- they did not really have to. Personally, I see their vote as a political move.

And, speaking of precedent and the willingness to adhere to it on the parts of Alito and Roberts, read Justice Ginsberg's dissent.

On edit - I actually agree for the most part with the Cort's holding in Gonzales because most partial birth abortions are performed after the first trimester, which makes them outside of the scope of Roe and, if I am not mistaken, there was an exception in the law allowing the procedure to be performed to save the life of the mother.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I personally do not agree with abortion and do feel that it is a life that is being terminated, and I could never personally have one; HOWEVER, I do feel that it is a privacy right that is protected by the Constitution and it should never be outlawed. I do believe in some restrictions, however, such as the ban on partial birth abortions.

Me too - that exactly is my position. Which, BTW, makes us hated by all sides :laugh: I mean who in their right mind thinks a 12 year old ought to be able to trot on up to the local abortion clinic one afternoon and undergo surgery without some kind of consent (judicial is good enough for me) being present.

Note - I feel the same way about gun control as well. I am all for the freedom to own a firearm, but there must be some reasonable restrictions or the massacres at places like VA Tech and Columbine will be repeated. Thus, both sides hate me on this issue as well :laugh:

Maybe we ought to start a club :cool:

On the other note - I am busy getting back to teaching my law classes. Still love it three years later and still much happier than when I was practicing family law.

Glad to hear it. Lord Child, what a difference three or so years makes :nod:

[Mad4stevie]

I sort of agree with you regarding Alito, but Roberts has repeatedly said that Roe was incorrectly deceided and it should be overturned :shrug:

In Gonzales, Kennedy assumed for the purposes of that opinion that the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Caseywere applicable and then he applied them. Moveover, the Court in Gonzales found Congress had the power to ban the partial birth abortion procedure.

So, while Alito and Roberts did not join in the concurrence of Scalia and, of course Thomas (does Thomas ever have an original thought :laugh: ) -- they did not really have to. Personally, I see their vote as a political move.

On edit - I actually agree for the most part with the Cort's holding in Gonzales because most partial birth abortions are performed after the first trimester, which makes them outside of the scope of Roe and, if I am not mistaken, there was an exception in the law allowing the procedure to be performed to save the life of the mother.

I can agree that Alito is less likely to overturn it than Roberts.

I do think the more moderate conservatives on the Court can recognize what overturning Roe and obliterating the right to privacy would do to our judicial system, so I still am less apt to think that they would blindly follow Scalia on that point (of course Thomas rides piggy-back on Scalia :laugh:).

I do think Gonzales was correct in that it did not hamper any rights during the first trimester, and put restrictions in place starting with the second trimester. The one thing it did do was blur the line between the pre-viability and post-viability language of Casey.

To read the Gonzales opinion, with all the details on how these partial birth abortions are performed, makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine how it can be justified that it is legal to deliver an intact child (everything but the head), and then insert a knife into the base of the skull to make an opening so the brains can be sucked out, all the while the child (yes, CHILD) is kicking and flailing arms and legs.

Repulsive to me.

[Mad4stevie]

Me too - that exactly is my position. Which, BTW, makes us hated by all sides :laugh: I mean who in their right mind thinks a 12 year old ought to be able to trot on up to the local abortion clinic one afternoon and undergo surgery without some kind of consent (judicial is good enough for me) being present.

Note - I feel the same way about gun control as well. I am all for the freedom to own a firearm, but there must be some reasonable restrictions or the massacres at places like VA Tech and Columbine will be repeated. Thus, both sides hate me on this issue as well :laugh:

Maybe we ought to start a club :cool:


I am right there with you on both! Yeah, alot hate us because of it! But we are used to being looked at "evil" anyway due to our bar membership. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I am right there with you on both! Yeah, alot hate us because of it! But we are used to being looked at "evil" anyway due to our bar membership. ;)

Lord Child - ain't that the truth.

And, you get the double whammy because you must have not been able to cut it the real world, so you teach at some liberal university (all are aren't they) :rolleyes:

Actually, I want to retire -- SOON!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[strandinthewind]

. . . (of course Thomas rides piggy-back on Scalia :laugh:).

It really makes me think they are lovers :laugh:

. . . The one thing it did do was blur the line between the pre-viability and post-viability language of Casey.

I suppose to a degree, but the Court specifically applied Casey. So, it could be argued that any blur as dicta.

To read the Gonzales opinion, with all the details on how these partial birth abortions are performed, makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine how it can be justified that it is legal to deliver an intact child (everything but the head), and then insert a knife into the base of the skull to make an opening so the brains can be sucked out, all the while the child (yes, CHILD) is kicking and flailing arms and legs.

Repulsive to me.

I know. I never really got where that procedure would be performed outside of some rare instance when the life of the mother was at stake. If that is the only way to terminate the pregnancy in that rare instance which the Act covers, then I would not be against it. But, seemingly there are more humane ways after the first trimester.

I suppose that the lower courts' rulings of Unconstitutionality due to the exception being for the life of the mother as opposed to the "health" of the mother had a point. But, I think that choice of terms in application is a dinstinction without a difference despite popular thought. I think that a doctor can find something that is life threatening if the mother really wants to abort and has only a health reason. I also think that this change in language is a good example of the ridiculousness of the R strategy. If a woman's health is threatened, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy; it is her body. It should not just be for a life threatening situation. But, the R's play to the far right every time no matter how inconsequential the change in terminology is in application :rolleyes:

Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly, Kennedy deferred to Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman and, therefore, found that a health exception was unnecessary. That language is troubling to me because a rare situation could occur when the health or life of the mother happens and the partial birth abortion is the only way to terminate the pregnancy. An academic argument I grant you, but to me, Congress has no business telling doctors how to operate in that situation.

[mylittledemon]

The establishment clause of the First Amendment and just about all of the docs surrounding the formation of the US Cont. specifically prohibit the Govt. from establishing a national religion. This means that the govt. cannot put religion into law. In other words, what is the difference between having a nationally sanctioned religion and having various laws based solely on religious ideals with no nationally sanctioned religion. There is no difference.


I see that. However, I also think an elected official should be able to say "You know I do not personally believe in that, but I realize I have no right to put my personal beliefs into law because doing so would violate the rights of Americans who think and believe differently than I do." I mean how hard is that :shrug:



See I take "the government cannot establish a national religion" to mean they cannot form something along the lines as, say, the Church of England and then enforce everyone to go to that church, and to practice that faith.

As for the 2nd part...well, we can dream on and hope for a president that says something like that. No politicians are perfect. We all are witness to that. If anything, politicians seem to be crooked as they come right? Faith based or not.

It also popped into my mind that every president I can recall in my lifetime (Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr) have all been Christian presidents. As a figurehead they seemingly have more sway and influence. I recall any of them going out of their way to say that their faith had no bearing on any of the important decisions they had to make.

[mylittledemon]

I support a town ordinance here requiring all businesses & individuals to keep the Sabbath.

Hey on a side note, when I lived in New Zealand...nearly everything was closed on Sunday. Frankly, I found it quite refreshing. It was a nice break for everyone from the work week. I don't think it was a government enforced kind-of-thing; I think the Kiwis just like their Sundays to enjoy.

[strandinthewind]

See I take "the government cannot establish a national religion" to mean they cannot form something along the lines as, say, the Church of England and then enforce everyone to go to that church, and to practice that faith . . . .

I think that is in general what they meant - no Church of England, etc. But, I also think the documentation surrounding the formation of the Constitution clearly indicates they did not want any other establishment of religion in the law. In other words, they viewed making someone adhere to a religious ideal in a law the same thing as establishing a religion. Here is an example:

Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html (this cite also has many more examples)

So, clearly the Establishment Clause was not just referring to the Establishment of a National Church. It was referring to enforecement of religious tenets through law as well.

Interestingly, when you read the quotes from the Founding Fathers in that cite, you can really see that they thought individual pursuit of religion was the way to go and that the govt, should have no business in establish a religion. One of those quotes is to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, when George Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." This is the exact point I am making and the exacxt point that Palin and the current R party are so vehemently opposed to :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Hey on a side note, when I lived in New Zealand...nearly everything was closed on Sunday. Frankly, I found it quite refreshing. It was a nice break for everyone from the work week. I don't think it was a government enforced kind-of-thing; I think the Kiwis just like their Sundays to enjoy.

When I was a kid, most stores were closed in Louisiana and it was nice. In Atlanta, the crazy Baptists passed a law making it so that you cannot buy booze on Sunday, which IMO is drawing the line WAY too far :laugh:

[mylittledemon]

When I was a kid, most stores were closed in Louisiana and it was nice. In Atlanta, the crazy Baptists passed a law making it so that you cannot buy booze on Sunday, which IMO is drawing the line WAY too far :laugh:

Agreed. My mother lives in Athens, Tennessee. It's a dry county (or city?). You can't even get alcohol for a 15 mile radius. Ridiculous. I suppose they justify that it "saves lives" though...so...whatever.

[strandinthewind]

Agreed. My mother lives in Athens, Tennessee. It's a dry county (or city?). You can't even get alcohol for a 15 mile radius. Ridiculous. I suppose they justify that it "saves lives" though...so...whatever.

Oh no - It is to make you go to Church and put money in the coffer - pure and simple, though saving lives is an added benefit.

[estranged4life]

^^^
I always thought "Church" was were one goes to compare clothing :shrug:

Unless of course, One is in Norway, then a "church" is good for, kindling, marshmallowing and smores and campfire songs.

And least we can't forget THOSE HOLY figures such as David Koresh and Jim Jones...Such GREAT religious folk.

Brian "Hey Kool-aid!!! Oh Cyanide yeah!!!" j.

[Sorceress]

If you take "religion" completely out of public law...then anyone who holds an office would have to be an agnostic. If you believe in God, it's part of the fiber of your being. It's going to affect what you believe, maybe some of the choices and decisions you have to make.

Don't forget about the Religious Left. There are plenty of people who are on the Left because of their religious convictions. Issues like social justice, peace, tolerance, and service are paramount. Think Quakers, some types of Mennonites, Christian Unitarians--and individuals and congregations in almost ANY denomination that choses to interpret the Bible in that way. Hey, Obama is a member of the Religious Left. He talks about Jesus way more than McCain does.

The reason that Rightwing Christians are so scary is because they forget about those parts of Jesus' teaching and are too busy judging and telling others how to live. When that extends into political decision-making, everyone who does not subscribe to that particular theology is at risk.