George Santayana was right.
 

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

When I look about today I am convinced that we must have stopped teaching history in our schools;

The 1%ers want to take us back to the 1920s - didn't work then won't work now,

Who else wants to add a lesson?

One post today caught my eye for it's breathtaking ignorance of American history.

"Separation of church and state is to keep government out of the churches. Not for churches to stay out of government." 427

The opinion of a Faux News viewer, a proud consumer of half-truths.

For the benefit of -5, I offer the following text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The bolded clause keeps the church out of government and the following keeps the government out of church. -5 is half right and half wrong. That's actually pretty good for him.;)

Gee thanks.

But what makes up the church/religion as a whole.

Use English, please.:rolleyes:

:confused: I'll bite. Explain what you think it is.

The people do.
They don't need anything to participate in a religion.

And they're entitled to vote. They can change laws with this vote that they're entitled to.

Yes they can but only within the framework of the federal Constitution. That is what the idiots in Arizona can't seem to grasp.

Your highlight says Congress and nothing about religion staying out of government.

If it did we would have no one voting and no one to vote for.

Are you buying into the talking point that there is a war on Christianity from the left?

Can I see a link to these idiots in AZ. I'm just speaking as a whole and not knowing this AZ issue sparking this history lesson. :rolleyes:

I'm not religious at all.

I just want all peoples rights respected.

More avoidance. Can't answer a direct question, eh?

No but I have seen a big change in this country in my lifetime. I see more people not following any religion at all. Is it good for the country I don't know. Has the country evolved into what I can only call a lack of moralities yes. Is it more to do with the lack of religion or parenting?

Got it.
Yep I heard that and don't agree the state needed a law for that and be specific.

I know in California a business owners can refuse service to anyone. It's not a individual's right to patronize a business.

Is it the best thing for there business probably not.

Ahh, I see you added the bolded after I quoted you. I was raised by a Methodist minister father and a converted Baptist mother. I'm still nominally a Methodist with maybe a lean towards Unitarianism, for what it's worth. I've also taken the time to study the rest of the mainstream religions, a little bit as time allows i.e. Buddhism, Judaism, Islam (I even have an English copy of the Koran :eek:). It's amazing to my mind that there is any religious strife anywhere as they all stand on the same founding principals. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."
Personally, the best idea of a cathedral is a towering redwood grove. It doesn't get any more spiritual than one of those. :cool:

So, it may strike you as funny or strange but most liberals that I've met have a deep respect of the rights of others to believe and act as they see fit - within the confines of the law of the land. We all love this grand experiment that is America and wish it to succeed.

1. Bullshit.
2. It has to do with fools trying to define morality.

That you do not care for something does NOT make it immoral.

I disagree with the bolded. No one can discriminate based on race, religion etc. in California. It's in our constitution.

Agreed, Mine would be looking out over the ocean from high cliff like though Big Sur. The massiveness make you humble.

Come on kids shooting kids, a total lack of respect of life and how others feel.

Were not talking porn peeping here lol

If that's the only manner in which to survive in their environment, it's not immoral.

It's something, but not that.

I'm wrong I was going by the signs posted in businesses.

Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service?
By Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. on November 3, 2011 5:45 AM
We reserve the right to refuse service.

The sign's message is clear and simple, but the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.

As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.

More
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterp...e-service.html

Tell that to the little 85 year old granny that gets her door kicked in by teenagers and they shoot her for no reason. Yep just happened.

It gets down to 'what is an establishment of religion?' That's what the 1st prohibits, an establishment of religion.

The historical example is an 'established' church, like the Church of England. We formerly had them in some of the colonies too. This is a religious institution incorporated into the state to some degree, with religious leaders entitled to certain public office and authority, and the institution supported by taxes on the general populace, be they religious or not. We've had whiffs of that as late as the 1960's, until we did away with censorship boards partially staffed by clergy.

But generalizing from this sort of thing, an 'established' church is one that wields the authority of the state, that enforces its dogma by the machinery of law, or that grants itself privileges and immunities from the law.

Do you begin to see why the Arizona balderdash violates the 1st Amendment?

Yes I do but you can't violate others rights at the same time. I see it all as a slippery slope in this great new experiment.

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

As a person with a completely useless Master's Degree in History I have always thought George was way off base. It does not matter if you know history or not it is human nature to do idiotic things and be harmful to your fellow human beings. The Supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the lessons of that were in their own lifetimes.


Ted Cruz is an Ivy League snob who has bamboozled low information voters in Texas to vote for him. Someone who attended Harvard he still was idiotic enough to shut down the government last year.

I know this is contrary to all that Political Chat and AK stand for but I think we need to vote someone off the island;)

Correct. People with religious values tend to think they should trump everything. But that way, as seen in countless historical examples, lies freedom-killing rule by absolute believers, and war to the knife when they collide with competing groups of absolute believers. Ancient and modern examples are endless. Separation of church and state is one of the best things our founders bequeathed to us, and you'd think more conservatives would value it.

In the immediate case, we have the supposed right of persons to refuse service to anyone, vs. the emerging human right not to suffer the insulting harm of discriminatory rejection by others. If the would-be discriminators do not get their way, they lose what? The right to be mean to other people they don't like? On the other hand, if the gays are not accorded protection here, they lose the right to feel they are accorded the full rights of human beings in their own society. They must instead feel dehumanized and insecure, fearful for their other rights, and for their very lives.

The last is no exaggeration at all--groups that suffer discrimination are always subject to murderous violence--sometimes covert, sometimes open and extreme, depending on the winds of culture and the endless war between liberalism and hate.

So I am foursquare committed to settling things like this the liberal way. I feel sorry for the anguish of the frustrated would-be discriminators, and I am sorry they have to feel like victims. But like those that want to sacrifice babies to Baal, they're just going to have to compromise a little.

I'd need more evidence of bad faith and bad intent than I've seen from any current posters. But there are cases where this recourse should be available. If the posting behavior is extremely anti-social, or otherwise purposefully and effectively destructive of the ability of the forum to function as a place of free conversation, this option becomes a necessity.

Well said Don Q both points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2P_RJJYjzY

Geez! You have no compass?

A compass isn't universal, it's field and environment based.

Most blatant example -- meaning zero personal or specific disrespect -- is if you are posing imminent threat to my children and I have no alternative but to use deadly force in their defense.

1. You will die.
2. Your death is completely justified.
3. It's not immoral.

Morality is based in the options at hand.

Morality is based on sentiment regarding what's right and what's wrong.

Most normal people across most cultures agree it's wrong to go around killing other people's children, and that deadly force can be used to stop that if necessary.

The really troublesome gap in the broad instinctive sentiments of right and wrong is that the sentiments, traditionally, only apply to 'our people.' Those 'others' are fair game for whatever you can get away with.

Some people, however, have more ability to include a wider set of people in the sphere of moral responsibility. They speak of human rights, which boil down to believing you should treat more and more people as you feel willing and obliged to treat family and neighbors. I hope this is evolution in action.

Kids shooting kids - a general statement.

If that is the only manner - a restricted statement.

And from that a bold statement on immorality/morality.

More like a tricky lawyer. No wonder the kids have no compunction.

Thats true, and nobody thought of Gay rights in a Judeo Christian society to include their human rights. They would have been hung for blasphemy.

They weren't too fond of blacks having their freedom or women voting either. Things change, -5.

And, contrary to popular belief, not every change is for the worse. In fact most are for the better. Especially when the change is for the common good.;)

Dave

Hurray!