The time for a secular right is long overdue. We have paid a huge price for the Mourdock’s and Akin’s who cannot handle intelligently “gotcha” questions on rape/incest/abortion. The Rpeublican Party needs to continue to be a party where people of faith are welcome but it also needs to recognize that the country is secular. If it weren’t then Barack Obama would never be president.
hat tip -Rodan
by Carrie Sheffield
As the GOP emerges from the woodshed and acknowledges its shortcomings, the center-right movement must address an important trend: America’s secularization.
It’s time for a secular right to emerge in a visible way like never before, in the name of both tolerance and practicality. In seeking tolerance, the GOP should support openly secular candidates and remove religious litmus tests. It should embrace our founding creed, e pluribus unum, since we are indeed a nation of many philosophies converging in one polity.
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney’s standard deflection from talking about his Mormon faith was to say that Americans didn’t care about his particular brand of religion but they certainly did want “a person of faith to lead the country.” This rhetoric sits poorly with fence-sitting, secular independents who aren’t adamant that a religious person occupy the White House. They want someone who has the heart of a public servant, but not necessarily someone who is motivated by religious devotion.
Mr. Romney couldn’t seem to translate his religious volunteerism into compassionate conservatism: President Obama — who does not attend religious services regularly and has repeatedly given rhetorical nods to seculars — outscored Mr. Romney on empathy by nearly 10 percentage points, according to a post-election survey from the Public Religion Research Institute. It seems that for many voters, religiosity doesn’t equal generosity.
Embracing secular language and ideals (which coincide with conservative and even religious ideals far more often than the GOP realizes) makes political sense. Religiously unaffiliated Americans are the fastest-growing “religious” bloc, with 20% of Americans now claiming no organized religion, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Electorally, this demographic trend translated to 25% of Mr. Obama’s total votes coming from the religiously unaffiliated. If Mr. Romney had been as concerned about courting the secular middle as he was about courting the religious right, perhaps he’d be preparing his Oval Office drapes.
Mr. Romney’s cautious, checklist-style campaign reflected the Republican worry that many white Protestants wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. Yet evangelicals fell in line, with 79% of Mr. Romney’s votes coming from white Christians. Many of Mr. Obama’s votes came from minority voters and the religiously unaffiliated, two demographic regions that are largely uncharted waters for the GOP.
To remain relevant in the 21st century, Republican leaders need to stop nominating candidates who engage in tone-deaf outbursts on social issues, a la Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, failed 2012 U.S. Senate candidates who used religiously motivated, clumsy language seemingly excusing some cases of rape. These were bombshells that hurt Republicans among women and seculars; they were easily understood, visceral targets for the left to exploit and distract away from the more arcane debates over fiscal cliffs and debt-to-GDP ratios. To cite “Biblical principles” on a campaign trail as too many Republicans do, is grating on the ears of many moderate, secular voters. [........]
The center-right movement needs voices that are willing to lay out rational, non-religious arguments for conservative principles beyond just the fiscal realm. Conservative leaders need to be willing to accept the rise in gay marriage, which, as former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman argues, promotes community stability and family values.
[........] Republicans are quick to defend religious groups that feel threatened by policies that encroach on religious liberty; they should apply similar vigor toward protecting the cherished American right to freedom of conscience unconstrained by religious dogma.
In the shifting political landscape, it is clear that secular voters will continue to become a more powerful voice. The question is whether Republicans are willing to listen and engage.
Read the rest – Time for a secular right
Hear, Hear! Let our inner libertarians reign and let us speak of ethics and policy instead morality and denomination. Let us “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars’s and to God the things that are God’s”.
MacDuff wrote:
Quite concur!
We need to loudly promote getting the federal government out of day to day living.
Let the state level people do whatever works for their state, but on the national scene our message needs to be clear, the government that governs least governs best.
By the way if Tim Scott gets the nod to be S.C. senator I hope he knows how to handle the inevitable rape/incest/abortion questions.
Mars wrote:
Actually what we need is to substitute “efficient government” for “small government”.
@ Speranza:
This is a good post on a subject that needs far more discussion around here. Bravo!
Mars wrote:
10th Amendment!
So you are saying that they is a significant number of financially conservative people (obviously millions, if there are enought to make a difference in an election) that voted for Obama instead of Romney because romney was religiously conservative?
I used to have much to say about this subject so I won’t repeat myself…but I have one observation…people get tired of religious doctrine invading politics, especially at the national level…shut the fuck up and stick to the economy and national security issues…get smart…the GOP needs every gay marriage supporter vote out there…live and let live, and get back to letting people make their own personal life choices
@ MacDuff:
Here is a winning issue for Republcians if they had some balls.
Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States That Legalized Marijuana Use
They should support the right of people in Washington State and Colorado to have weed legal. This is a winning issue that will help with younger voters and promote the 10th Amendment!
@ heysoos:
See my # 10!
MacDuff wrote:
Thank you. We (Republicans) need to re-evaluate a lot of our assumptions
Speranza wrote:
I’m having a hard time believing there is such a thing as efficient government.
MacDuff wrote:
That is the real Christian stance, my friend!
Mars wrote:
It is just word play. However with so many people psychologically depending on government we need to start talking “efficient” government.
@ Rodan:
the GOP should lead the charge…bring some reason into the pot/whiskey debate….get pot off the Schedule 1 lunacy
@ Mars:
I agree, there is no such thing. But using the word efficient is a seller. It’s about messaging as you and I have discussed.
heysoos wrote:
I could not agree with you more.
heysoos wrote:
Agree. This is about personal freedom and state’s rights.
By all means, let’s join the radical left’s push to purge religion from the public square.
Brilliant plan.
//
father_of_10 wrote:
No but there was a whole lot of people who resented being “moralized” to by people such as Santorum, Akin and Mourdock.
Just as I support Arizona and other states to do SB-170 style anti-illegal immigrant laws, I support the right of states to make pot legal. 10th Amendment!
Rodan wrote:
Yep. Literally from the Man Himself’s Lips.
lobo91 wrote:
Who the hell said that?
Rodan wrote:
10th amendment is a winner.
Rodan wrote:
Not a fan, saw what it did in my state for just limited legalization.
But, the states decided, so the feds should back off. This was decided at state level, so they should be the ones to deal with the consequences.
Amen sistah!
@ Speranza:
It’s like what Rick Perry said, It’s OK NY has Gay marriage. If you don’t like it, move to Texas where it is banned.
It’s not a difficult concept!
Speranza wrote:
I agree. But if we ever gain all three parts of gov again, it should be slash and burn on the agencies time. Return the powers we have illegally stolen from the states.
Speranza wrote:
You did.
lobo91 wrote:
It’s not about removal of religion from the public square, more like removal of religion from the hands of politicians.
@ Mars:
I support weed legalization, provided the same laws for Alcohol and Tobacco are implemented. No public pot smoking, no driving while high and employers can fire anyone for being stoned. If someone lights up in their home, go ahead.
I’m not in favor of an anything goes legalization.
If let’s say Alabama wants pot illegal, fine by me. If NJ wants it legal, fine by me.
@ Mars:
That is efficient government right there!
The more we devolve to the states, the better.
I want my conservative politicians to shut up about lots of religious stuff. However, true conservatism should never allow for the government to fund abortions . . . or toe amputations.
True conservatism is gender neutral, religious neutral and fiscally sound. It is when conservatives start to try and counter the immorality of the liberals that gets them painted into dogmatic corners that shouldn’t even be part of the debates.
@ MacDuff:
Politics corrupt religion in my opinion. The government should protect the right of free religion practice. But it should not impose religion. There is a Middle stance and it doesn’t have to be either or.
Rodan wrote:
Yeah, the pothead lobby around here is the one putting in all the restrictive tobacco laws. I can’t smoke a cigar in public, but during our brief experiment with legalized weed the little fuckers could light their stinky shit anywhere they wanted. (Also their second hand smoke is a lot more trouble than mine.)
I know a slam dunk strategy that Romney could have used,
” Whatever Obama is giving you, I’ll give you more!”
That’s what the election was about, “free stuff”
It was not a bad candidate, it is the electorate.
57% of Americans approve of the job that Obama is doing!
father_of_10 wrote:
Well said and I agree with you! The Government should protect religious liberty, but it should not impose a religious test either.
Rodan wrote:
More of a litmus test by political parties.
Rodan wrote:
We have a good example of that in the affair of Richard II and Thomas Becket, don’t we?
lobo91 wrote:
I sure as **** did not! I said that government and politicians should keep out of religious questions.
@ Mars:
Yeah, the pothead lobby around here is the one putting in all the restrictive tobacco laws. I can’t smoke a cigar in public, but during our brief experiment with legalized weed the little fuckers could light their stinky shit anywhere they wanted. (Also their second hand smoke is a lot more trouble than mine.)
I am with you and that’s not the type of legalization I support. If you can’t smoke cigarette public, you should not be able to smoke pot in public. Even if its legal, Pot should be a private matter.
For the record, I believe Cigarettes should be allowed to smoke in public or in a car. I do not smoke, but I don’t care what someone does.
MacDuff wrote:
Actually you mean Henry II (who by the way was a great king).
@ Mars:
I don’t know about Washington, but the new law here in Colorado is causing its share of chaos. As usual, they didn’t think about things like what happens to cases that are currently in the courts, or how to actually implement things like prohibiting driving while stoned. There’s no field test for it, after all.
Rodan wrote:
And if people want to drink coca cola by the gallons (dumb asses) let them.
@ MacDuff:
Absolutely. Let us not also forget some of the corrupt Popes our Church has had. Their forgot their mission is to head the flock, not be a Caesar. The Borgias are an example.
Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this Earth and I wish more Christians would realize this.
@ Speranza:
Exactly. The Left has their Nanny staters. See Mike Bloomberg for example or Michelle Obama.
We should be the party of personal freedom.
Rodan wrote:
I felt also that it should have been up to individual businesses whether or not they allowed smoking in their establishment (specifically bars and casinos.) The liberals did not see it that way.
I will still not attend any kind of activity or celebration in this town where a particular band is playing. They were the faces on the ads trying to shut down public smoking. My opinion was that they were the ones who chose to become musicians, then they could be adult enough to choose whether to play in a place that had smoking or not.
Instead they wanted to dictate to everyone else where and when it should be allowed.
I don’t support boycotts, but I refuse to support a-holes.
Speranza wrote:
You are correct, I was reading something about Richard II earlier. It’s still a cautionary tale about the corrosion that occurs when politics and religion mix.
@ Mars:
Bingo, if a Bar wants to allow smoking, do so. If people do not like it, go to another bar.
Rodan wrote:
So you think that allowing abortion up to the moment of delivery and letting people marry farm animals is going to help conservatives win elections?
Mys stance on Abortion, The government should not pay for it.
lobo91 wrote:
Yep, happens the same way over and over. The people vote for something and don’t realize the consequences of the action. They don’t realize that it can’t just be legalized without a framework in place.
At least here they got smart and voted to re shut it down.
Rodan wrote:
Of course “not difficult” often means “flat wrong.”
Same-sex marriage is a wholly secular issue that has as its objective the destruction of the First Amendment. The line about, “if you don’t like it, come on over here” is cute, but meaningless.
Rodan wrote:
My stance on abortion: It is murder.
Rodan wrote:
Indeed, we have had Popes crossing the line as well, and no good came of it. I kinda see the “render unto Caesar” line was a broad admonishment, not just Christ’s observation on “Caesar”.
@ Mars:
Apparently the plan here is to drop the charges against people whose cases haven’t gone to trial yet. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If something was illegal at the time a person was arrested, the fact that the law may have changed later doesn’t change the fact that they broke the law. Are they going to pardon people who were previously incarcerated, too?
father_of_10 wrote:
We clearly need to get rid of the laws against murder, though, since they’re based on the 10 Commandments.
@ lobo91:
I don’t think government should pay for abortions and there should be restrictions agaisnt late term abortions. Whats kills us the the perception that we are against abortion even in the cases of rape. That is what is the killer.
The best thing to do against abortion is not through legislation, but through societal stigma. How to create that stigma, I have no clue and if I had an answer, I would let everyone know.
As for marrying farm animals, If that’s the Left’s new cause, mock them for it. Make them look stupid and asinine. Use ridicule and humiliate their stupid ideas.
father_of_10 wrote:
Agreed, but there’s no federal statute against murder (unless it’s that of a Federal Employee murdered in the lone of duty).
I see a really big difference between gay marriage and abortion. One is destroying a human life and the other isn’t.
Our laws are based on preserving life and liberty of the individual. Gay marriage does not affect life and liberty, so who really cares?
@ father_of_10:
But others disagree with you. Why should a raped women carry the child of the rapist? It should be up to the woman. Personally I am against abortion except in the case of rape, but it is not a winning issue. It really has cost the GOP parts of the country they once used to win.
The best answer is to create social stigma against it. How to do that, I have no idea. If I come up with a way to make abortion social stigma, I will tell everyone.
father_of_10 wrote:
It is the law of the land and there is no national consensus to criminalize it.
Rodan wrote:
Actually pedophilia is their next new cause. Research the links I’ve posted the last few months.
Actually except for the most liberal states, I believe that at the state level , most states will put into place more restrictive abortion rules than the feds will dare.
@ Rodan:
Pushing religion into the shadows isn’t going to make that any easier.
MacDuff wrote:
Shakespeare’s “Richard II” is one of his great plays.
@ Speranza:
The same was true of slavery at one time.
What we are missing here are the two most important things though.
1. Control the message. Break the leftist monopoly on the media.
2. Destroy the ruling class/oligarchy. We have a class in this country that now feels they are born to rule. Take a look at our political dynasties, and look at who controls what in this country.
We need to go back to the citizen politician. Someone that gets into office, does his job, and gets the hell out.
@ MacDuff:
Abortion is a tricky issue. I am against it except in the case of rape. But it’s not a political issue to die on. Roe vs. Wade was the dumbest decision in SC history. It ruined political debates. It was 40 years ago, we are talking about 3 generations here. For many, they don’t see it as murder. It’s not simple and honestly, it should be a State issue.
Rodan wrote:
Why should the child conceived in the rape be murdered? Why compound evil with more evil?
Did someone mention gay marriage?
Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases
@ lobo91:
I am not calling for that. My stance is Government should support religious liberty, but it should not impose religion.
@ father_of_10:
Because it was forced on the mother against her will. She has every right not carry an unwanted baby forced on her.
Rodan wrote:
And who’s trying to “impose religion” on anyone in the US, aside from some Muslims?
father_of_10 wrote:
That is where you’re wrong—and that erroneous belief is one of the reasons same-sex marriage is such an effective social worm.
The gay-rights movement, communist-founded, was open forty years ago about its intention to destroy marriage—just as Cloward and Piven were open about their desire to “crash the system,” just as Barack Obama was open about his desire to soak the rich and stand with the Muslims.
So, why are the activists now pursuing it?
First, because falsely comparing the invention of same-sex marriage with the destruction of race-based marriage laws, the gay-rights movement goes full hermit-crab and inherits the “civil rights status” of the old civil rights movement.
That means “gay” becomes a protected class; that means anything the gay-rights movement claims a legal objection to will be subjected to “strict judicial scrutiny.”
That means there will be more lawsuits like the ones mounted already, against private businesses which have declined same-sex marriage business.
That means that teaching the Bible will be considered “hate speech,” as it already is in Europe.
That means there will be lawsuits attacking traditional religious denominations for refusing to perform same-sex marriages—and they will succeed.
Free speech and freedom of religion—and of association—are all under attack by the gay-rights lobby. That is what it has done for decades. It is the gay-rights lobby that has invented and popularized the concept of “hate speech”—which is death to free speech.
So, yes—there are problems with “gay marriage” affecting life and liberty.
Rodan wrote:
Yes it is a rough one. I look at as any other killing, life of the mother or rape/incest should be considered “self defense”, everything else is, at the least, manslaughter.
Other than the killing of Federal Employees on the job, there’s no federal statutes against murder, it’s left to the states. I see no reason why abortion should be any different.
Just my two cents.
MacDuff wrote:
Watch the First DA/DT Justice write the opinion. And watch it fuck the First Amendment royally.
Abortion kills one by one.
Ignoring threats to Constitutional protections kills liberty itself.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I have to agree with you on almost everything. The bad part is that many gays have been duped by this “movement” even ones on our side.
The big thing I see right now is that this issue is going to be used by the leftists to use the government to force churches to conduct these marriages, against their own principles. Thus making it easier to break the churches and bend them to the leftist agenda.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
And it’s not as though they’re going to stop with same-sex marriage.
Polygamy laws will be the next target, followed by statutory rape laws. After that come the farm animals.
Ultimately, the goal is the complete destruction of any concept of “family” as it’s been known for thousands of years.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That’s what happened to the Civil Rights Movement; Blacks are now like human “Spotted Owls”.
@ Mars:
There is a lot more to this, but I have to sign off. Take it up in a day or two—it’ll come around again.
@ lobo91:
Rick Santorum comes to mind.
lobo91 wrote:
Pedophilia is their next one. I don’t have time to dig up all the articles again, but maybe if I find the time I can put up a post on it.
@ lobo91:
How can the government force people to have families? Would that not stomp on Individualism? If someone doe not want a family, why should they be forced?
Rodan wrote:
Really? What church was he trying to force people to join?
Mars wrote:
Harry Hay, one of the founders of the early “homophile rights” groups, Mattachine, was a solid Stalinist. He later founded NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Hay was a big hero to Obama’s Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, who had been involved in teaching “safe fisting” to high school students.
Rodan wrote:
Who said anything about forcing people to have families?
The left is trying to eliminate the very concept of the family, and has been for decades.
@ 41 Speranza: What are those questions? They eventually create a political decision and a political boundary. A lot of religion is about the immersion of a life in a faith. Should the government accept that or try to separate it out in numerous little rules?
@ lobo91:
He envisioned some general Christian-Socialist state that was anti-Individual.
Defense, transportation, trade, public health, education seems to be viable national government issues.
I would say the social justice work is then a national religious issue. The government shouldn’t be involved in it. They should be sued by churches constantly until they give up on it. Put churches in charge of food stamps.
darkwords wrote:
I think that when a political party tries to come across as “the party of God” -- bad things happen.
@ lobo91:
I do not disagree with that at all. Just look at Jacobin France, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. What gets me leery are when politician envision using government to “support” the family.
My take, government should not attack the family nor should it promote the family. One way it can stop attacking families is by ending the great society and rewarding women with government benefits for having kids out of wedlock.
Rodan wrote:
You’re starting to sound like another guy who used to have this well-known blog…
@ Speranza:
Hizb’Allah calls itself the Party of God!
@ 80 lobo91: What was amusing to me about the pro gay marriage ads was the use of the number 2 as if it was some sort of divine number for couples. They move the goal post from 2 people( a man and a woman) to 2 people of any gender as the sacred marriage boundary codified in law. Yet there exists a polyamory community associated with the LGBT community that works on the numbers 3 and up. The gay community is heavily bigoted against them or hides that issue for now until they can legislate their caliphate.
lobo91 wrote:
only for po’ folk who vote donk
@ lobo91:
Santorum is a Progressive using social issue rhetoric to trick Conservatives.
Great discussion. I have to go to a Christmas Party!
Keep the great discussion going everyone!
@ 92 Speranza: I think that is true. Both parties are parties of God in the mind of a strong faith. There is plenty of progressive faith in the Bible as long as a respect for traditions. I thought Romney straddled that bridge as well as anyone could. But still no votes.
today the pits, tomorrow the wrinkles…
the govt has bigger fish to fry than who’s marrying who…polygamy does not bother me in the least
@ MacDuff:
Whaaaaaaat? You’re calling Obama a Spotted Owl?
How about a Snail Darter?
You are going to be sent to reeducation or worse lose your LGF account!
@ 101 heysoos: Well there are places in the world 4 wives are the norm. Or where a woman runs a family assisted by brothers. That would mean a person going to a judeo christian traditional church would have to grow into a broader acceptance of what is ok to exist out there in the real world. It also means a more refined from of evangelism. Probably based on personal example instead of scolding.
darkwords wrote:
I think Mitt was hamstrung by the incorrect perception of the GOP being akin to the party of the folks who prosecuted Scopes in 1925.
darkwords wrote:
assuming there is no tax or other advantage to polygamy, it’s just not my affair…I probably would not want multiple wives, but I’ve no right to impose my moral will on others
I think we have the democracy we do and capitalism because of the actions of distinct polarities on the human mind.
On and Off. There should be very little maybe on and maybe off. No fence sitting allowed in evolution of the fittest.
One reason altruism always fails is that people aren’t big enough for it yet. someday maybe. It is the same reason that any big institution is a failure. They grew past a common touch.
@ 105 heysoos: Telos. One of the roles of Government is to enforce a fair marketplace as a common good. Human nature tends to hoard and not share. One could say at that level that is God at work. Creation. Creating newer and newer government structures that exist to make people competitive on an equal footing. With some strengths and weaknesses not accounted for. else life is dull. But human nature in government also tends to create too much government.
The information revolution should create empowered individuals. with little to no trappings of state. Just pure economic units running wild for better or for worse. varmits.
heysoos wrote:
The government’s interest in marriage is relegated to the legalities of succession, wills and legitimacy of offspring, the first two of which becomes far more complex in the case of polygamy.
As an aside, it’s unfortunate that discussions such as this always veer into the most ridiculous and exotic possibilities imaginable.
darkwords wrote:
Then explain low information voters
MacDuff wrote:
I agree with the role of govt…I do not consider two wives exotic
heysoos wrote:
I do, as does the whole of the developed western world.
We needn’t call into question and redefine every single practice, word and cultural more, then stretch it to the point of absurdity in order to achieve the elusive “equality”.
@ MacDuff:
And if we could only keep the people from the rest of the world out, it wouldn’t be a problem. In case it’s escaped your notice, our government has been actively importing Muslims from the third world.
Once gay marriage has become accepted as the “new normal,” I guarantee you that they’re going to start pushing for the right to have their Islamically-sanctioned 4 wives.
And on what grounds will we be able to prohibit it?
That’s not exactly a big stretch. It’s already become de facto legal in parts of Europe.
lobo91 wrote:
@ MacDuff:
@ lobo91:
Quite a few of these non-secular topics did have Biblical guidance and I always wonder if there were very real and specific reasons for these prohibitions. Probably long forgotten even at the time they were written.
Looks like we may be finding out in a few generations.
MacDuff wrote:
Didn’t I read something about a transgender male insisting on being allowed to use the ladies restroom?
eaglesoars wrote:
One can become so open minded that one’s brains fall out. The public square is increasingly becoming littered with brain tissue.
eaglesoars wrote:
The case you’re probably thinking of was the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College (Rachel Corrie’s alma mater).
eaglesoars wrote:
Rachel Maddow didn’t I tell you to stay out of there!
For most of human existence laws were promulgated. A king, warlord, junta, etc. told you what the laws were and you obeyed, left, or overthrew the regime.
Even though a few centuries seems like long time, it really is not that long compared to all of human history. So IMHO laws developed in a republican or democratic setting are a relatively new thing. To me, inevitably, laws in this setting are built by consensus. In one way this seems to be satisfying in that the voting public had a say so in their legal system. But on the other hand it does in fact lend itself to a feeling that everything is up for grabs. I believe the founders did not want ancient Athenian democracy (which proved disastrous) but on the other hand they did not want to re-establish a monarchy.
We are struggling with core issues. Murder seems to be universally recognized as a crime but when life begins seems to be a question that has not reached the same level of consensus.
I am wrestling with these issues myself. I am for freedom but not for anarchy.
lobo91 wrote:
heh. Why am I not surprised?
@ unclassifiable:
Of course they did. Pork and shellfish can cause all sorts of problems if they’re not cooked properly. The prohibitions against incest are obvious (although not, apparently, to the Muslims).
And in the other direction, the reason Islam favors plural marriage is because it’s the easiest way to outbreed the competition.
@ unclassifiable:
Look at what they just voted for in California. A majority of the voters got together and voted to raise taxes on a minority of the citizenry.
How is that any different from a gang of thugs surrounding someone on the street and demanding that he hand over his wallet?
@ lobo91:
It is different in the most major way possible.
Taxes have the force of law. Thugs robbing you do not — and a matter of fact it is against the law.
You may feel that the outcome is the same but they probably won’t kick your ass a bad if you go to prison for taxes (well ok the inmates might kick your ass).
lobo91 wrote:
Ah, I’m going to disagree here. In Biblical times a widowed woman would be married to her husband’s brother in order to provide her and her child the protections of marriage. It still happens in Saudi Arabia. In his book, the bin Laden’s Steve Coll tells the story about Carrie, a western woman who married into the family. Her husband was killed and his older brother married her. Also, Islam is considered one of the Abrahmic religions because of Abraham’s taking Sarah’s slave Hagar -- I think that was her name -- when Sarah was barren.
@ eaglesoars:
What do Biblical times have to do with Islam, which wasn’t invented until the 7th century?
Sure, they claim all sorts of connections, but it’s all BS to fool the rubes.
@ unclassifiable:
Until such time as a bare majority of the voters decide to change the law, which was my point.
The fact that a group of people got together and decided something is now “the law” doesn’t make it legitimate.
lobo91 wrote:
I was simply citing the cultural/historical source of the practice. In some regions of the world, it never disappeared.
lobo91 wrote:
Or worse, when ONE person simply ignores the law and the people who could hold him accountable cave.
See: Obama and Executive Orders
When Obama demanded that the House cede their constitutional authority over the debt limit to the executive, the should have started impeachment proceedings.
@ eaglesoars:
Obama should have been impeached a dozen times over already for the stuff he’s done so far.
I can’t wait to see what he pulls in his second term, now that he has “more flexibility.”
lobo91 wrote:
I’m expecting a lot more executive orders
eaglesoars wrote:
He’ll probably stop bothering with those, even, and start issuing decrees from his throne.
lobo91 wrote:
That too -- via the reg agencies like the EPA and Interior
Has anyone heard a status on Lily?
lobo91 wrote:
You mean his golf cart.
eaglesoars wrote:
I haven’t.
@ lobo91:
That’s sophistry. Of course it is legitimate. It’s the very definition of legitimate.
Now was it very smart? Well no I don’t think so. And apparently you don’t think so either.
But I would like you to re-think your beliefs. If what the majority did was not legitimate then what the heck is? Are we to believe that any law we do not like is not legitimate and can be flouted? Shall we have anarchy? Who will rule in anarchy? Let me suggest it will be the very thugs you fear.
And I have no illusions for a vast majority of people who voted for this tax increase. They probably did not think it was that big of a deal. Pretty much the “I’m not rich so what” attitude. They will have to live with the consequences of this action and perhaps they will begin to understand that their votes should not be so flippantly ill considered.
eaglesoars wrote:
I would think that Calo will give us a report as soon as she can find out.
I got to go to the house. As usual the good threads seem to break out at quitting time for me:D
See y’all in an hour.
lobo91 wrote:
All with the tacit approval and encouragement of the electorate. “We The People” has become an overbearing relative who’s pissing me off more by the minute.
@ unclassifiable:
No, it’s not.
There’s a world of difference between an elected legislative body making something law and mob rule, which is what that process in California was.
If you don’t like the way your representatives vote on something, you can get rid of them at the next election. You can’t vote your fellow citizens out, though.
lobo91 wrote:
And that’s the crux, isn’t it?
lobo91 wrote:
I absolutely agree, but our representative democracy, in the form of our representatives, is becoming more herd-like thus diminishing the “representative insulation” from mob rule.
I hope that makes sense…
When the Gov stops taking my money to pay for abortions, I’ll stop saying something about it. Otherwise it should remain part of the political debate.
When the Gov stops telling me what principles and morals I follow can’t be part of my speech or thoughts, I’ll stop something thing about it. Otherwise is should remain part of the political debate.
Has anyone in the states that’s legalized pot thought of the consequences when employers start firing people for use (if they retain that right)? What about all those CDL holders driving trucks/school buses, you want to be next to them on the interstate or have your children on their bus? Will you still be in favor if your family member is killed by one? I don’t want any part of the pot crowd, I’ve buried friends that was sure it wouldn’t lead to more powerful stuff, they were dead wrong!
Now that I’ve had my say, this Christian will move to his assigned corner and just shut the F__k up as was suggested up thread!
Tanker wrote:
Me neither. Stoners are boring, stupid, and dangerous. However, as far as I know states have ‘driving impaired’ laws, regardless of the substance causing the impairment.
Same for employers.
MacDuff wrote:
Passage of the Seventeenth Amendment was a big win for the Democracy Mob and another nail in the coffin of Federalism.
eaglesoars wrote:
How are they going to know for sure? No real standard test for pot use.
Red eyes going to be the standard for further testing?
yenta-fada wrote:
Just got off the phone with the nurse.
She’s in stable condition!!!
Tanker wrote:
Well, cold/flu meds can cause impairment. How do they know then?
Calo wrote:
THANK GOD!!
{Calo}
@ Tanker:
Exactly. They were just talking about that here in Colorado.
There’s no field test, and there isn’t even an established blood level to determine what constitutes “impaired.”
@ Calo:
Good to hear
@ Calo:
Great to hear! Prayers for her quick recovery!
@ Calo:
Good
@ 143 MacDuff: Instead of breaking ourselves into red and blue states which is a left leaning MSM driven defintion, we should break ourselves up into problem causing and problem solving states and budget accordingly. Where is the heritage foundation?
@ eaglesoars:
Just talked with her husband.
She’s awake and responding to commands.
They are going to work on getting her off the breathing machine in a few hours.
BBL
@ Calo:
Geez, last I heard she was going in for tests….she had an event?
@ Calo:
Thanks so much Calo
MacDuff wrote:
Cardiac surgey -- 3 stents
eaglesoars wrote:
3 stents i THINK
MacDuff wrote:
Triple bypass surgery.
Gotta go… Hot hubby here to wine and dine me.
@ eaglesoars:
Triple bypass.
MacDuff wrote:
She went in for tests on Monday, and they kept her there.
lobo91 wrote:
ALL POLITICIANS in DC have no intestinal fortitude. Period. End of Story.
gotta go
Tanker wrote:
Red eyes can result from conjunctivitis, ocular rosacea, Cushing’s syndrome, and who knows what all else.
1389AD wrote:
Exactly! I guess you made my point! Much easier to catch a drunk than a pot head! I don’t want either on the road with my family!
well, that was an interesting read, and not too many insults.
not bad.
there is no honor / salvation in getting suckered on the abortion or gay or any religious question. losing is the one thing that will certainly never change the laws.
lose the election to someone who is whole hog for abortion or whatever does not advance the cause. in fact, it further codifies the laws into practice as more and more layers of govt are added to the ‘immoral’ act. this makes these acts/laws even harder to remove as they have more and more layers piled on top of them to keep them in place.
wanna change? change society from the bottom up. change minds one person at a time. eat away at the base of the structure and eventually it falls. getting suckered by the same questions over and over again just insures that the other guy wins and your guy never gets a chance.
So basically get rid of religion and we’ll have utopia.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Who said get rid of religion?