Democrats vs. Republicans on Civil Rights

[Hawg]

If you want to teach the Bible in a public school, then create a course that teaches Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for world religions. In fact, I think we should have one of those.

Why? Especially why for Islam? This country was founded on Christianity. You have the freedom to persue the religion of your choice, or not but why should we kow tow to other religions? They came here knowing this was a country founded on Christianity. Why should we change to suit them?

Some of you guys are gettin funnier and funnier, especially the fags.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Which party wants to force kids to stand up every day and pledge their allegiance with a little ditty that includes God in it? The God part was not there originally. It was added in the 1950's when everyone was afraid of those Godless Commies.

I beleive the Pledge was adopted in the 1930's under FDR when the Govenment was solidly in control of the Democratic party.

Which party wants to regulate sex acts and the substances you put into your body and will gladly to trample your liberties to enforce these policies?

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, forerunner of the DEA, was created under FDR with solidly Democratic Party control of Congress. That's where the unconstitutional drug control laws got their start in the US. Not at all accurate to blame the Republicans for all of the mess.

Can there possibly be anything more intrusive than the government telling you what sexual positions you can use?

Agreed. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on striking down the sodomy laws. Same concept as Griswald v. Connecticut.

Maybe having them tell you that you have to carry the fetus inside your womb to term. I don't like abortion but I like the idea of the Government's power reaching into a woman's uterus even less.

I think the unborn baby has rights that need to be respected.

Both parties have nothing to offer but bigger government, continued centralization of power in Washington, higher taxes, wealth redistribution, incumbent protection, and further erosion of civil liberties.

Agreed at this point. But I think there is a greater reservoir of anti-nanny state politicians in the Republican Party. I see hope for the Republicans so long as they have a significant number of folks like Ron Paul, Dana Rohrabacher, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, et al. I just don't see more than a handfull of such folks in the Democratic Party.

They argue about emotional issues on the fringe to keep the public distracted but their core aims are the same.

Agreed. Karl Rove did just that with the gay marriage issue in '06. Cynical and unsuccessful strategy.

Looking at the current crop of presidential candidates sends cold chills down my spine.

Agreed. Unfortunately, these candidates send shivers up the leg of the press (Chris Matthews referring to Obama).

Viable third party? I can see that happening soon. Barr is already polling 10% of the Republican base.

 

[Musketeer]

If you want to teach the Bible in a public school, then create a course that teaches Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for world religions. In fact, I think we should have one of those.

Why? Especially why for Islam? This country was founded on Christianity. You have the freedom to persue the religion of your choice, or not but why should we kow tow to other religions? They came here knowing this was a country founded on Christianity. Why should we change to suit them?

Some of you guys are gettin funnier and funnier, especially the fags.

Because religions are a part of human society and understanding what drives different religions and their rules is in no way endorsing them. ANTHROPOLOGY. I would wager knowing the main points of the worlds most common religions is far more relevant and valuable to today's students than it is to know the date the Magna Carta was signed. How many people here can state what the primary difference is between Shiite and Sunni? Given we are in the middle of a conflict with both shooting at each other and us in the middle shouldn't we know this bit of information?

As far as the repetitious comments of this being a Christian nation...

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," - Proposed and Signed by John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

We are not a "Christian Nation." We are a nation comprised of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and just about every other religion as well as atheists. All have a right to worship, none have a right to inflict their religious rules upon others.

Finally what is your problem and why do you see the need to spout homophobic slurs?

 

[milemission]

Hawg Haggen, contrary to popular belief, many of our founders were more or less agnostic or atheists. Proof?

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." James Madison

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" John Adams

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." Benjamin Franklin

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson

I trust I make my point, that this country wasn't founded upon Christianity. That isn't to say that I have anything against Christians, as much of my biological family is Christian, and my grandparents are devout Christians who would give the shirts off their backs to somebody in need. It's just that the political agenda of the religious right goes against the first amendment and freedom for all people, and I don't like these right wingers going around judging people on whatever basis they can find.




Now, as for the world religions course, it would be very helpful. I am not for teaching religion in school as scientific fact or whatever, but the schools have a curriculum seriously lacking in the world cultures department. One important aspect of culture is religion, and with Islams numbering over one billion, and being the primary religion of several strategically important nations in the Middle East, I think a basic understanding of that is absolutely necessary. Christianity is very important, as it is the belief system of the majority in the United States, and there are also over one billion Christians worldwide (though other than the United States, this religion may not have the strategic importance of Islam). Judaism has fallen out of favor somewhat, but it is the cornerstone of both Christianity and Islam, and the slaughter of Jews during WWII led to the founding of a nation-state in the Middle East that has created quite a stir. These are the three religions worldwide that by far have the greatest influence on international politics, and it is very important that any education includes a basic understanding of all three in order to understand the world around them.

 

[milemission]

Hawg, the sexual orientation of any of us on this board is not relevant and none of your business. Whether I am a homosexual or not, I would not be telling you. The difference between a homosexual and somebody else, other than sexual orientation and the rights denied to them on that basis, is nil. They have to make a living just like everybody else.

 

[Hawg]

The difference between a homosexual and somebody else, other than sexual orientation and the rights denied to them on that basis, is nil.

Your opinion, not mine.

 

[milemission]

Hawg Haggen, that is my EXPERIENCE, as I personally know several LGBT people. I can't help it if you have no first hand experience with homosexuals, or you don't realize that you do. I remember my pastor once (long ago) saying it was only by the grace of God that he doesn't hit homosexuals on sight. My thoughts were that a homosexual could be standing right next to him, and he probably wouldn't know it. You all make them out to be weirdos that are easy to spot in a crowd, when most of them aren't. So chances are, you've met several homosexuals, but you didn't realize it at the time.

 

[Hawg]

For your information I know several queers. My brother in law is as big a fag as they come and believe me he thinks he looks and acts normal but anybody that spends five minutes with him knows. Doesn't mean I don't like him but he dang sure knows how I feel about his lifestyle. What you do behind closed doors I don't care about but it shouldn't be made public and shouldn't be legalized.

 

[miboso]

What you do behind closed doors I don't care about but it shouldn't be made public and shouldn't be legalized.

Contradiction: You seem to care enough about it to not want it legalized, whatever that means. More big government crap, I guess.

 

[Hawg]

No contradiction. Like I said what you do in your own home doesn't bother me. I just don't want to see it.

 

[BillCA]

Okay guys, the discussion of sexual preferences is in no way related to firearms or the purpose of this board. I recommend we drop that part of the discussion before this thread gets closed.

This country's educational leaders need a swift kick in the pants. Most of the so-called "administrative" leaders in the educational system fail miserably at preparing our children for adulthood and teaching them the skills they need.

We not only need to teach kids how to read, comprehend and write grammatically proper English, but how to speak it as well. It goes without saying that mathematics is necessary for daily living and that means learning do solve problems without a calculator.

When I was in Jr. High School we had a 2-year program that taught "Government". The first year was mostly about our government, building on the U.S. History classes from grades 1-6. The 2nd year explored other forms of government - Monarchies, Dictatorships, Communism, Religious governments and the like.

Similar education about religion can and should be taught. Coverage should include the various forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhism as the major religious groups. Students should have at least a basic understanding of the differences and the underlying messages upon which each religion is based. But none of this idiocy of requiring students to bow to Mecca during studies of Islam or to fast during Ramadan. (Would teachers expect Jewish or Muslim students to eat pork while studing the Germanic Lutheran church?)

Of course, neither the Democrat party nor the Republican party could ever endorse such a program. For the Dems, it would theoretically introduce religion in schools. While the Republicans would be agahst at the schools teaching about non-christian religion. Or as I've put it before... the stupid leading the blind.

 

[RedneckFur]

Hawg Haggen, ya know there are some gay shooters on this very board too? I'm one of them. I really like how you call us "fags" and "queers". Nice touch. Makes me glad that this board has an ignore fuction.

That asside, I personally fee that both political parties would be willing to infringe on our civil rights if they thought it would keep them in power. Democrats want to restrict rights in the name of equality, and many of the Republicans would be willing to restrict rights in the name of religion. I'm not a big fan of either party, and I think they both need some serious cleaning out.

 

[milemission]

Redneck Fur, thanks. There are many politicians from both parties that wouldn't mind expanding their powers. The Republicans, who are supposedly respectful of civil liberties, have demonstrated otherwise. The Democrats, who seem to be more of the people's party, do engage in excessive taxation many times, support too many social programs, and have a questionable ambition to take firearms (even knowing that it loses them many an election). The last point especially makes me wonder, as if they want to do it badly enough to lose Presidential elections, well, why is that?

On another note, as far as homosexuality, perhaps we should start another thread on that.....

 

[Hawg]

Okay guys, the discussion of sexual preferences is in no way related to firearms or the purpose of this board. I recommend we drop that part of the discussion before this thread gets closed.

You're right. I'll not make any more comments and I'll try not to respond to any.

 

[W. C. Quantrill]

 

[kansashunter]

 

[miboso]

The "positive" thing about what the conservatives want to push through is that it tends to get overturned eventually, either through the court of public opinion, or the Supreme Court. What's scarey about what the liberals want to push through is that it sounds too good to refuse, meaning you are bad if you don't go along: "for the children", "if it saves one life", "do you want people to starve", etc.

Politicians become too scared to oppose, and unfortunately, not enough on the Supreme Court are willing to do their job. So, over time, the parts of the conservative agenda which violate the Constitution tend to get shot down, whereas the parts of the liberal agenda which violate the Constitution tend to stay around.

 

[Al Norris]

[snark]Where oh where is a moderator when you need one?[/snark]

Okay guys, the discussion of sexual preferences is in no way related to firearms or the purpose of this board. I recommend we drop that part of the discussion before this thread gets closed.

See the above quote? Even when a long standing member points it out, you folks won't be self-moderated.

Some of you, just have to keep it off-topic / get-in-the-last-word / defend-your-life-style / attack-the-life-style, etc. ad infinitum.

..sigh...

So let me put a little authority behind this: We don't discuss race, religion or sexual preference. As many have observed, these subjects do nothing but divide us as a community. Think Twice, post once.

 

[cornfedmidget]

civil rights is misnomer

Aren't civil rights, rights granted from the state? Under Common law there are "human rights" and "natural rights". I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Remember, if the state inacts specific "rights" they can in-turn retract such rights. "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." If the state is indeed the "lord"? One of the pillars of Civil Rights is "freedom from discrimination". This is of course false, because the federal governtment, nor any government has the power to promise such a "right". Everyone is capable of a degree of discrimination. And everyone has excersised disrimination on someone else. Civil Rights are another way for you to hand over your "natural rights" or "human rights". Minorities were exploited to accomplish such task.

 

[BillCA]

Think Twice, post once.

Thanks Al.

Aren't civil rights, rights granted from the state? Under Common law there are "human rights" and "natural rights". I believe Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Remember, if the state inacts specific "rights" they can in-turn retract such rights.

Our basic "civil rights" in this country, as declared in the Bill of Rights, are supposed to be inherent, inalienable rights of all men. The terms "human rights" and "Natural Rights" should be interchangeable, but are no longer. The leftist groups attempt to expand on "human rights" to include such things as not being offended by a racist-sexist-lewd-sterotyping joke; being discriminated against because they have tatoos or piercings visible; or because they dress like the opposite sex; or the "right" to have a taxpayer-funded abortion.

You are correct in the assumption that if such rights are granted or given to people, they can be legislated into oblivion by a legislature.

The difference is that natural rights do little to promise you a safe, happy, contented, convenient life. They don't promise you will never be offended, insulted, demeaned or ridiculed. They don't promise you life will be free from risk, danger or an early death. The don't promise that you will be fed every day or have clean clothes or a shower.

The difference is that one party understand this, but the other party keeps insisting that the luxuries of "modern living" are part of our "rights".