Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 170
I am in my 30s, have three children, and work for a living. I am married. We own one house, two vehicles - one 4X4 truck and one SUV - two dogs and many guns. I worry about gas prices, I know what the fields nearby held last year, about the bumper crop of soybeans a couplefew years ago, and that the deer on the game camera are related to the 14-pointer on the wall, if the drop on the left tine is any indication. I live in a fly-over state.

I'm your demographic. I voted for Obama.

If you keep insisting I voted for Obama because I "want free stuff", you have no hope of me voting for a Republican for president in 2016.

You'll also note I didn't vote for him because I am black - another assertion heard both in the last election and this one. Still white, here.

The more you open your mouths about rape babies, voter fraud and illegal immigrants, the farther out you push me. I am MORE "liberal" now than I was when I graduated college, oh so many years ago.

The thing is, though - I don't think I've moved. I think I stayed in place, in the middle. What happened is *you* moved. You allowed the party to move over to the far right "legitimate rape" crowd, at least in rhetoric, and you lost me. When you call Colin Powell a RINO because he didn't vote precisely as you would have him do - you lost me. When you accused Bob Dole - BOB DOLE FOR GAWD'S SAKE - of being the same, you lost me a little more. I'll be honest, McCain had a decent shot, say 40/60, of getting me until the insulting choice that was Palin. What, you thought "I know how to get the women's vote - put one on the ticket!"?

I'm the middle. I think a smaller government would be a grand thing indeed - but that includes a cut in military spending. That includes you not fighting a battle won 40 years ago and trying to get all up in my hoohaa and my hoohaa's business. That also includes welcoming healthcare reform like the ACA - because for all your blovating about it "causing costs to skyrocket", I've been paying attention all these years since entering the workforce - costs have been increasing dramatically *every year*, already.

That includes not wanting to hear any more about "the war on Christmas" and "we are a Chrisitan nation". There is no war - for Jeebus's sake, everyone but theater workers and Chinese resturuants get the day off - and we are NOT a Christion nation. We are a nation that has Christians in it - as well as Muslims, Atheists, Buddists, whathaveyou.

I don't want to go back to the 1950s. You'll note those saying they want to go back to the 50s are overwhelmingly white, and male. I am not male. I am white (very, very pale indeed), but not male. The 1950s were not great for women or minorities. I cannot even fathom why you would not support the Ledbetter act, but I *can* tell you that, for all your protesting it wasn't true, it lent quite a legitimate (ha! see what I did there!) air to the left's "war on women".

I am for gay marriage. I really, really think you are on the wrong side of history on this issue, and in 20 years will look back and be all "gah, that was stupid". I know gay couples that have been together longer than I've been alive; I have other couples as friends that are raising healthy, happy children together.

These voter identification laws? You've got to be kidding me. They are a poll tax - round about and clever, sure - but still a poll tax. I'll play ball with you on these IF you can make them absolutely and completely free - the documents required to get the ID must be free, the offices to get them IN must be open outside of 9am to 4pm Monday through Thursday because I KNOW THIS IS SHOCKING TO HEAR poor people usually, like, WORK. A lot. Especially during those hours. These offices must be on public transportation lines, they must be adequately staffed, and they must be multi-lingual.

Oh, that's right - "speak english or go home!", right? If you wonder why people call you racist....it's because of these type things. 1) We do not have an official langauge, so get off your high horse and 2) I don't notice you complaining about Germans or Swiss of them there French Canadians....just the brown folk speaking the Spanish.

Speaking of brown (hell, how about just "not white") folk: they don't scare me. I know, I know - Go-to boogeyman, amiright? But really, they don't scare me. Muslims don't scare me any more than Christians do. If you are trying to dog-whistle me over with boogety-boogety-boo, it won't work.

You talk of higher education with a sneer; one of the scariest moments of my life was being in Poli Sci 210 and realizing that the other students in my class were having to study. *blink* Really? Not familiar with the whole "three branch" thing yet? I cannot fathom why you wouldn't want the electorate more educated as a whole - it could only lead to better and better things. For example, I know there are three separate branches of the government, with checks and balances, and so therefore know that any rumors of the President taking away our guns (Clinton, I mean, wasn't that a rampant rumor about ol' Billy? Oh.....oh I didn't realize Obama was planning on it as well....) is false....as he wouldn't have the authority or chutzpah to do so, since the other two branches would also have a say.

Also: yes, I am "lucky" to have a job in this environment. But not "lucky" enough that I'll grovel and beg for my pay or my benefits. What my employer and I have here is what's called a "Mutually Beneficial Relationship" - I do work, then I get paid. We both have to be at least content with the other, or the whole thing goes to chit.

<SIGH> I could go on and on, but the bottom line is: if you want a shot in Hell of getting back some of the "in the middle" votes you lost this time, you need to immediately quit accusing us of wanting free stuff, of being lazy shiftless layabouts, of "not understanding" the healthcare debate. You need to get out of our bedrooms and our hoohaas, tell the racists to shut up, realize that even genteel Southern ladies would like their interior decorators to have weddings, and quit acting like the rich folk are put upon. I'll give you a hint - having to sell stock to pay for college? Not put upon. At. All.

impolite

P.S. I do not vote a straight ticket. Ever. So no "just another Democrat" here, folkd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
My demographic is a little different. . .and we don't have guns, but I find myself pretty much in the same place as Imp. I used to think I was kind of a moderate Republican. Even a compassionate conservative. But I feel like the party left me. No straight tickets for me. (And I probably canceled out DH's votes along the way.)

Gail
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I love how the big takewaway on Fuxnews for the GOP is that they need more brown candidates or they will keep losing elections.

It is funny to see the thinktanks of the party, like Rove and Kristol, squirming to right the ship with talk of changing ideology and being more inclusive, and the show host nods and says something about "yeah we need more Rubios in the party! *facepalm*

It's like they are pretending to be willing to change, but are continuing to make all the wrong choices.

I think it is going to be a really fun 10 years watching this message really sink in as they continue to fail.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I'm your demographic

PS, not so much, with your whole uterus-having condition. But hey, sammich.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
PS, not so much, with your whole uterus-having condition. But hey, sammich.

Like I said - there was a lot of "No there is NOT a war on women!" coming from that side, but a whole lot of pretty words couldn't cover up the obvious actions to that effect.

My very own father, bless his heart, still can't figure out why everyone was all {incredulous} that all men testified during the hearings on the birth control exemption.

Uh duh.

I read a piece (oh, that I could find it again!) online about a major difference between how the two parties view racism. Hang with me here, it'll get back to gender.

The basic premise of the article was that Republicans think something is racist only if the INTENT of that {policy, law, whatever} is to discriminate against non-whites. Democrats view something as racist if the effect of the {thing} is a disproportionate disadvantage to non-whites, regardless of the intent.

While the article was a little thin (and overly simplistic to boot), I think the idea can be applied at least a little, especially in regards to gender. Taken separately, abortion rights, religious exemptions for BC (which have been discussed at length on my board, so totally no shock on how I fall there), the Ledbetter debate, etc. all probably aren't seen as discrimination - they are seen as "policy debates".

However, *to the affected group* - women - they are as a whole outrageous. They add up to what feels like an assualt on the gains made by our foremothers.

Top it off with remarks about "the good ol' days"? Yeesh. No "War on Women" my ever-widening azz.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
impolite added to your Favorite Fools list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
[They] aren't seen as discrimination - they are seen as "policy debates".

Equal pay is a good idea. Equal pay laws are good laws. The Ledbetter act is a bad law and it is all about policy. The Democrats should be ashamed to have voted for it, and the Republicans should be ashamed of how they responded to it. It is an example of a law passed for political grandstanding. It is a bad law put forward only to put the other party on the defensive.

First of all, we need to be clear about what the Ledbetter act does and does not do. It does not provide for equal pay for women. We already have a law for that. It is the aptly name “Equal Pay Act.” All the Lilly Ledbetter act does is provide an unlimited statute of limitations on equal pay law suits.

Lilly Ledbetter got some bad performance reviews at the beginning of her career around 1980. Since all of here raises after that were merit raises she was behind the other male workers from the start. After she retired almost 20 years later she decided to sue over those bad performance reviews. The Equal Pay Act has a statue of limitations of three years, so she sued using the Civil Rights Act and claimed that every pay check reset the Civil Rights Act’s 180 statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court rejected this, though it did add if the company had hidden the pay differential from or deceived Lilly at the very beginning that would be another matter and the pay checks would reset the statute of limitations.

Keep in mind, the discrimination would have occurred in 1980. The company would have to defend itself for an incident that occurred 30 years ago. If Lilly thought those performance reviews were bad, she could have sued in 1980 (there was an Equal Pay Act then), but she didn’t. After that her reviews were better, but she never “caught up” with the other workers because she fell into a whole. If she had never known about the differences in the pay at the start, then she could have sued with the old law, and that would have made sense since the company was lying to her with each check.

But she did know. She wanted it both ways. She wanted to be able to keep working and not rock the boat and she wanted to be able to sue. If the Democrats thought that three years was too short, then extend the statue of limitations on the Equal Pay Act. Instead they amended the Civil Rights Act to say that each pay check resets the statue of limitations. Now there are two acts that employees can sue under so companies have to spend time and resources complying with both and one of them has an open-ended statute of limitations. Generally the crimes we want to have open-ended statutes of limitations are things like murder. What we need is one act with a well-defined statute of limitations.

There were two reasonable courses for the Democrats to take. Extend the statue of limitations on the Equal Pay Act or codify the paycheck extension limit to state that the employee must have used deception about the original discrimination. What the Lilly Ledbetter act did was make every raise an employee has had since he or she started employment reviewable at any time. The Republicans should have pointed that out and said this is a bad law, not because of equal pay, but because of how it is implemented and they should have then offered a better alternative. But everyone who voted against that law should feel proud.

Wally
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
The Republicans should have pointed that out and said this is a bad law, not because of equal pay, but because of how it is implemented and they should have then offered a better alternative.

Yes, exactly. But they miss the second step, and seem not to understand that it's the important one.

Don't like the ACA/Ledbetter/Tax Proposal/Bailout/Etc.? Fine - what's your alternative?

Screaming that we are all brazen sluts that want free birth control and CT scans and money we didn't earn? Not the correct second step.

impolite

And yes, I know *you* Wally didn't make this Second Step mistake
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, exactly. But they miss the second step, and seem not to understand that it's the important one.

Oh true. They do tend to double down on the crazy. Also, to the point you made very well earlier, if you are in a minority position, you will not move to the majority by saying that those people who disagree with you do so because they are stupid/crazy/lazy/slutty. That might work to stay a majority, but it will not win you any new friends. Not just because it's insulting, but also because you are just wrong. And if people see you being wrong about one thing, they will assume you are wrong about other things.

Wally
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
impolite added to your Favorite Fools list.

Been a long time coming, but you nailed it this time.
Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
You know, Wally, I spend a lot of time discussing and debating politics on my FB wall, with people who hold various political views including ones at polar opposites to mine. Many of those people are ones I like and respect even when we disagree; I trust them to at least attempt to discuss something objectively, and I do the same. (And some... well, I keep them because we have non-political things in common.)

But in all the arguments we've ever had, no one has ever explained what you just did. I'm still not sure if I agree with your view of whether or not it was a bad idea. I'd prefer to think about it more before coming up with an answer. But at least now I have some actual information on WHY someone wouldn't want it passed.

Having a conservative yell at me that it was just some greedy bich trying to screw over corporations isn't educational or informative. Your post here was both.


Thank you,

Frydaze1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Continued pay discrimination is still discrimination. I don't see why the first discriminatory act matters at all. If I pay someone less because they're a woman or minority today, that's not OK just because I did it for 10 years before today!


But as usual, the Republicans will not even acknowledge the problem. As far as they're concerned there is no pay gap, and there is no discrimination. They shouldn't feel "proud" to have voted against this remedy. They didn't have a better legislative alternative, their policy was the status quo, making it nearly impossible to address pay discrimination.

Of course it is a pity that we have only one party left these days. Having two proposed solutions to choose from, or a compromise, is usually for the best. Until the republicans find a way out of the fever swamp that's not going to happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But in all the arguments we've ever had, no one has ever explained what you just did.

Which is why the Republican response so annoyed me. They said that this law would be a burden on business so we shouldn't pass it. The Republicans themselves framed it as equal pay vs. business. They talked about how horrible this law would be for business. But every regulation good, bad or indifferent is burdensome to business. There are still some we need. What they should have said is, "Here is how we are going to do it differently." They had to talk up their convservative pro-business credentials to such an extent that they came off as anti-equal pay. They weren't just for business, they were against all these evil people who want to derail business.

Let's look at the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans dug in on the not raising the top tax rate "on principal." Really that is the hall mark of conservatism, whether or not the top marginal tax rate should be 39.6% or 35%. Somewhere in that 4.6% rests the true dividing line between a God-loving capitalist and an evil socialist. If you're not on the right side of it, you want to ruin America.

And of course, let's not forget two senate candidates who decided to play a game of "Let's see who can be more pro-life, no matter how crazy we sound!" It's a fun game and it only cost us two senate seats.

The Republicans really want to tell us who they are against. I think they should spend more time on what they are for.

I'm still not sure if I agree with your view of whether or not it was a bad idea.

Disagreeing with me is generally a good idea in most cases.

Wally
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I love how the big takewaway on Fuxnews for the GOP is that they need more brown candidates or they will keep losing elections.



Their problem is that can't figure out where to buy them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's like they are pretending to be willing to change, but are continuing to make all the wrong choices.


Dealing with the symptoms and not the root cause. AGAIN. Oh, pundits. Never change.

I've been mulling over this article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

for the past week. I found it very interesting and not in a schadenfreude kinda way. If the right can learn from their mistakes, they will be very competitive in the coming elections. And if the left doesn't learn from the right's mistakes, they will be toast.

Echo chambers are dangerously seductive. They're nice. They're easy. You don't have to think. Remember what Mitt Romney was like four years ago? He was supposed to be the moderate to save us all. (See also: Bob Dole in 1988 but a lot of youse might be too young to remember.) If someone like Chris Christie can stay Chris Christie and not a pandering facsimile that gets nominated, the Democrats would need to nominate Christ himself to have a chance in 2016.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Their problem is that can't figure out where to buy them.

Maybe someone has some binders.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<If someone like Chris Christie can stay Chris Christie and not a pandering facsimile that gets nominated, the Democrats would need to nominate Christ himself to have a chance in 2016.>

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Christ Himself couldn't win on a Democratic ticket in Texas (and other deep red states) if Bin Laden or Satan himself were on the R's ticket. But time and demographics will change that. Hope I'm alive to see it!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Impolite added to your Favorite Fools list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Christ Himself couldn't win on a Democratic ticket in Texas (and other deep red states) if Bin Laden or Satan himself were on the R's ticket.

I remember a time when Democrats OWNED Texas, thanks to LBJ.

And the time may come again. Who knows.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Great post, impolite!!!

Congratulations to you -- and your hoohaa ;o)

Jack
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nice rant.

Though I think it's wrong to blame the Republicans for what they are. The real problem is in the two-party system. You can choose between a right-wing conservative or a left-wing liberal party. Judging from your complaints your problem with the Republicans is that they are conservative.

This is not going to change by 2016.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's some advice - you Dems should keep drinking the Kool-Aid !
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 77
I think it's wrong to blame the Republicans for what they are....Judging from your complaints your problem with the Republicans is that they are conservative.

And what are the Republicans, exactly? To an outsider, like me*, the Republican Party stands for the following:-

- Breaking the terms of the American Constitution by imposing a religon (Christianity) on the citizens of the United States of America.

- Keeping the population of the United States ignorant by refusing to teach real science in schools. Instead, they want Creationism taught or Intelligent Design, neither of which stand up to the rigors of scientific method.

- Making the rich richer while impoverishing the working classes. Bush's tax breaks made things easier for the top income earners, who earn money from multiple different income streams, and not for those on the bottom of the heap who only have their wages to live off.

- Putting the rights of companies before the rights of citizens. The Republican Party is perceived to stand for "Big Business" - anything that benefits big business is all right by them - even if it means those corporations don't pay fair levels of tax, enslave their workers and polute the environment around their plants (thus damaging the health and well-being of citizens).

- The Republican Party is perceived to stand for partronage. The equation: George W Bush + Iraq = Large contracts for Halliburton looms large in many European minds, whether it is accurate or not.

- The Republican Party stands for interferring in people's lives (1). It is the Republican Party that wants to limit access to birth control, ban Gay marriage, and outlaw abortion. (Note to the religious right: legalizing gay marriage doesn't make you homosexual. And if God is so offended by homosexuality, why did he create Gay people????)

- The Republican Party stands for interferring in people's lives (2). Bush's Homeland Security legislation tramples all over civil liberties.

- The Republican Party stands for deficit funding. The last three Republican presidents have incurred massive Federal debts, spending far beyond tax receipts. The only Federal Government since the Civil War to pay back Federal debt and balance the budget was Bill Clinton's. Fiscal conservatism is not spending money you don't have.

- the Republican Party stands for hypocracy. Preaching "small government" while increasing the size of Federal bureaucracy and increasing government spending is hypocracy.

- And, finally, the Republican Party stands for enriching the corporations that provide health care in America: the health insurance providers, the HMO's, etc. American health insurance costs have risen at a far higher rate than inflation. In the richest country in the world, people die while waiting to find out if their HMO or health insurance, will cover their medical condition. Even with so-called "good" health insurance, the co-pays can bankrupt you**. And why, in the richest country in the world, are 40 million Americans denied access to health care because they can't afford insurance premiums?

- Pam





* And you can't get further outside the US than where I come from.

** Anecdata: in 2008, my American project director's son was involved in a car accident and hospitalized for about a month. Paul's co-pays were over $100,000 and he paid for the best level of insurance available to him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I don't agree with the original post. Impolite voted for Obama because the Republicans weren't liberal enough. So why not vote for Romney because Obama wasn't conservative enough?

And to address the "Republican Party stands for the following," I offer the opposing view -

- Keeping the terms of the American Constitution by refusing to exclude Christianity from the discourse in Washington.

- Trying to improve education of our youth by giving it back to parents and churches instead of a non-Constitutional Department of Education that imposes a non-religious secular humanism on children.

- Letting the rich keep the fruit of their labors, and encouraging all to work to support themselves and their families. Government is not the solution to all life's problems, and making the rich poorer is not the answer. Making the poor richer is.

- Understanding that it is business that employs people which raises the standard of living for all. If you punish business, they'll move overseas or close. I'm going to miss Twinkies.

- If you don't care whether the "patronage" statement is accurate or not, there's no sense in disputing it. You've made up your mind without facts. The Democrats stand for patronage of unions at the expense of profitable American automobile companies, patronage of teacher's unions at the expense of children, patronage of government unions at the expense of taxpayers.

- The Democrat Party stands for interfering in people's lives (1). It is the Democrat Party that refuses to have an honest debate about the sanctity of life and protecting the lives of the unborn who cannot defend themselves, but instead want to accuse pro-lifers of other straw-man motives such as "controlling women." It is the Democrat Party that wants the government to usurp the rights of churches who established marriage and make it a secular humanist thing. Gay rights activist reject the "civil union" label which would accomplish want they want, but hold out for corrupting the church's term for a sacred union between a man and a woman.

- The Republican Party stands for interfering in people's lives (2). Bush's Homeland Security legislation tramples all over civil liberties and the Democrats verbally trash it but end up supporting it when it comes time to vote because it helps prevent terrorism.

- The Democrat Party stands for deficit funding. Every President since Reagan has supported deficit spending, including Clinton who only balanced his budget by raising Social Security. The difference is the Republicans at least verbally oppose deficit spending. The Democrats spend like drunken sailors and blame it on the Republicans. Fiscal conservatism is not spending money you don't have.

- the Democrat Party stands for hypocrisy. Preaching "fiscal responsibility" while establishing unaffordable entitlement plans and increasing the size of Federal bureaucracy and increasing government spending is hypocrisy.

- And, finally, the Democrat Party stands for enriching the corporations that provide health care in America: the biggest beneficiary of the Unaffordable Healthcare Act is the insurance companies since every persons will be forced to buy insurance. Health care costs will continue to rise because of the massive new bureaucracy and controls, leading to restricted medical care to reduce costs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 60
Trying to improve education of our youth by giving it back to parents and churches instead of a non-Constitutional Department of Education that imposes a non-religious secular humanism on children.

So yeah, basically you didn't get the point of my post at all.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Disagreeing with me is generally a good idea in most cases.

I disagree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thank you for your insightful ... er ....inciteful post.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Also, to the point you made very well earlier, if you are in a minority position, you will not move to the majority by saying that those people who disagree with you do so because they are stupid/crazy/lazy/slutty. That might work to stay a majority, but it will not win you any new friends. Not just because it's insulting, but also because you are just wrong. And if people see you being wrong about one thing, they will assume you are wrong about other things.

And now Romney is making things even worse by claiming that Obama gave 'gifts' to various groups to get them to vote for him. Um, ex-gov? Does it occur to you that maybe they perceive Obama as being aware of the problems they face and are therefore willing to vote for him? That when people look at the two candidates they say, "well, Obama understands the pressures and problems I deal with, and I think he will continue to make sure that government continues to work to help me and other people who are in the same boat, and Romney just spouts a lot of talk about making sure rich people don't get taxed and stuff." (NOTE: that is how people perceived Romney, not necessarily what he said).

I wasn't thrilled with Obama's performance over the past four years. I was really willing to look at a Republican candidate who would be more centered. And I got a former governor who, during a time of relatively high unemployment (5.5%), said he wanted to cut unemployment benefits because they were unfair to businesses.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 50
Apologies to impolite for engaging on her board...

mrmeyer,

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions on just a few specific points. I'm not interested in a massive, acrimonious debate. Just a few points that confuse me even when I discuss them with my conservative friends. So assuming you're willing to answer courteously, I will ask courteously:


- Trying to improve education of our youth by giving it back to parents and churches instead of a non-Constitutional Department of Education that imposes a non-religious secular humanism on children.

Religions have many conflicting views on various scientific subjects. Even just within Christianity. What is your ideal of how the public school system should handle this? For example: Bill Nye was verbally attacked for stating that the moon doesn't have its own light but instead reflects the light of the sun, when a particular group of Christians insisted that the bible said otherwise. I'm going to assume that you agree that the moon does not, in fact, cast light of its own. But there are Christians who feel that such a teaching contradicts their religious beliefs. How should the public school system determine which religious beliefs should be honored by not being contradicted in public education? For many of us, the answer is "if it goes against what current science tells us to be true, it shouldn't be taught in schools". Do you have a rule to offer instead, which would allow your beliefs to be taught but not a "moon casts its own light" belief to be taught? Or do you believe that both should be taught? Should it be by national majority vote? A school-by-school parental vote? A Department of Education vote? What is your solution?


It is the Democrat Party that wants the government to usurp the rights of churches who established marriage and make it a secular humanist thing. Gay rights activist reject the "civil union" label which would accomplish want they want, but hold out for corrupting the church's term for a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Do you believe that people who don't belong to a church should be permitted to marry? My husband and I were married in a back yard, in a secular ceremony. We are both atheists. (Though my uncle, who married us, is Jewish.) Do you consider our marriage to be *legally* valid even though it wasn't performed by or blessed by any church? (I don't care if you consider it to be religiously valid, since your religion doesn't interest me.)

We can argue all day about whether or not marriage started as a church controlled institution. I believe there is plenty of evidence that it didn't. But it really doesn't matter which of us is right there. The fact is that marriage is *currently* a legal state, regardless of whether or not it is also sometimes considered a religious state. This is why my husband and I are, legally, considered married. No matter what your church's opinion is of our marriage. And we do NOT have a "Civil Union", we have a marriage - by the definition of every state in our nation. Even without a church. A religious ceremony is currently considered an optional add-on to the legal commitment of marriage. I agree that no government should force your church to perform such an optional religious ceremony if they don't wish to. But it is clear by the very fact that I am married, that the church (as if there were only one!) doesn't own the rights to the word "marriage" or its definition or its application.

Unless you believe that marriage should be legally denied to atheists, satanists, muslims, buddhists, pagans, etc. you cannot logically claim that the church is in charge of marriage in any way, shape, or form. Nor that they *have* been in charge for as long as those marriages have been legally available.

The government has had an input into what constitutes a valid marriage for centuries, even here in America. The Mormons established a colony in Utah and wanted to join the Union, but were not permitted to until they agreed to give up their polygamous marriages. That is a classic example of the government telling a church that its religious beliefs about marriage would not be accepted as a national standard, nor even permitted within their own group if they were part of our country. So you can neither blame the Democrats for that, nor even claim that it's unconstitutional. It's been an established prerogative of our government for centuries.

You can certainly claim that you'd *like* for the church to be the sole owner of the right to create and define marriage. But it is dishonest to claim that they've actually had such ownership in the entire history of our country since at least before Utah became a state.


Frydaze1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Trying to improve education of our youth by giving it back to parents and churches ...

Education and churches go together like chocolate smothered in lard.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
The Democrat Party stands for interfering in people's lives
Ummm...OK.

They aren't the ones suggesting that women should have a non-medically necessary, invasive (and I might add, as someone who has had one - painful) transvaginal ultrasound because they are all wiggy about abortion.

When I think of the Republicans these days, I think of them as LOVING to interfere in people's private lives. If they want my vote again (and I've voted for them in the past) they have to jettison their posturing as the Christian Taliban.

I'm a business owner - one of those "job creators" you would think they'd want to include. But they seem not to even make a vague semblance of wanting to attract my vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Education and churches go together like chocolate smothered in lard.

Are you sure chocolate and lard don't go together?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Education and churches go together like chocolate smothered in lard.

What do you think an oreo cookie is?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What do you think an oreo cookie is?

FOOD FROM THE GAWDS.

impolite
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hmmm lard.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Education and churches go together like chocolate smothered in lard.

Now, if you'd said chocolate covered garlic. . .

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you think an oreo cookie is?

LOL, good point.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is your ideal of how the public school system should handle this? The Bill Nye example seems extreme to me. I believe that the responsibility of educating our children should rest with the parents first, then the local community, the the larger community, etc. Not top-down from Washington. Where did Washington assume it had the right to indoctrinate our children? Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching.

Do you believe that people who don't belong to a church should be permitted to marry? I didn't say that. A Christian marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. When marraige is still between a man and a woman even if they're not religious, it doesn't offend one with this sacred view of marriage. As long as the "legal state" doesn't contradict the "religious state," you'll find no argument. An even more conservative viewpoint would question why the government is involved in defining marriage in the first place.

The example given regarding the Mormon church is interesting, since it defined a marriage between a man and only 1 woman. Homosexual marriage was not included as an acceptable state when polygamy was eliminated.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
What is your ideal of how the public school system should handle this? The Bill Nye example seems extreme to me. I believe that the responsibility of educating our children should rest with the parents first, then the local community, the the larger community, etc. Not top-down from Washington. Where did Washington assume it had the right to indoctrinate our children? Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching.

I don't think you answered my question. Though to give you credit, you said basically what my other christian friends said: "Well obviously THAT view is crazy! We don't want the school to teach crazy stuff."

So how do you define crazy? Or "extreme" to use your word? How do you define what should and shouldn't be taught by the schools? (I think it goes without saying that any religious view will be thought crazy by *someone* else - even if that someone else is also religious.)

And, yes, if you remove religion from public schools they become secular. Why is that wrong? If you want them to teach religion, again, how do you decide which flavor of religion? My ex-in-laws believe the earth is about 7000 years old. xMIL's brother believes it is millions of years old. They are both mainstream protestant christians. Which view should be taught in schools? Obviously there's no way to reconcile even the christian views on it. And it sounds like you wouldn't want other religions' views to be taught. So should schools refrain from any teaching of any science, in case it contradicts what any religion might teach?


Do you believe that people who don't belong to a church should be permitted to marry? I didn't say that. A Christian marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. When marraige is still between a man and a woman even if they're not religious, it doesn't offend one with this sacred view of marriage. As long as the "legal state" doesn't contradict the "religious state," you'll find no argument. An even more conservative viewpoint would question why the government is involved in defining marriage in the first place.

The example given regarding the Mormon church is interesting, since it defined a marriage between a man and only 1 woman. Homosexual marriage was not included as an acceptable state when polygamy was eliminated.


So as long as we don't claim our marriage to be a christian marriage, it should be okay, right? So if a gay couple wants to get married, but doesn't claim it's a christian marriage, you shouldn't have a problem with it. (We'll save the "what if their own christian church says it's okay" question for a little later.) We non-christians do a lot of things whose legal state contradicts the religious state. (And some religions - even sects of christianity - have different rules about what contradicts a "religious state" than others.) Do you believe that all laws in our country should conform to the laws of your church?
Some churches (even christian ones) have no problem with homosexual marriages. How do you decide which church should be in charge of the religious state? Some churches believe that Sunday is the day of rest and no work should be done. Some churches (not just SD churches) believe it is Saturday. Do you believe our country should have a law prohibiting work of any kind on the day of rest? And how do you decide which day should prevail?

Or do you just want some religious rules to be secular law? And if so, how do you decide which ones?

Mormons: True, the government decided at that time that marriage was 1 man and 1 woman. My point is that the government decided. And it wasn't the rule before that. So obviously the government also had the right to change its mind and make new rules. Also note that miscegenistic marriages were not included as acceptable at that time. Again, the government changed its stance on that later.


Thank you for your civil responses. I'm finding the conversation very interesting.

And I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to understand how and where you draw the lines. It's one thing to say "I want more religion in school and law", but it's another to define how much and which one. And to define it carefully enough that someone else's religion, which contradicts your own (even if they are both called "christian"), doesn't step on your beliefs more than lack of religion does. I'm interested to learn how you define it in order to achieve your goal.


Frydaze1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
An even more conservative viewpoint would question why the government is involved in defining marriage in the first place.

A more historic view is why did churches involve themselves in a civil matter. This is in terms of Christian marriage. Other faiths have different rules, and this is understood, I hope. I don't want a long series of posts about how I overlooked the traditions of Judaism and other faiths.

For a long, long time, even into the late Middle Ages, a marriage meant that two people agreed that they were married in the presence of witnesses. That was it. The guy said, "this is my wife" the girl said "you are my husband" and that was the end of the matter. Marriages were recognized by the government because there would be questions of parentage and inheritance.

Then, after a while, people thought it would be nice to stop by the church, after the wedding, to get the priest to bless the marriage. Then events moved on, and the next thing that happened was, quite belatedly in terms of marriage, the Catholic Church announced that it was in charge of marriage, and the other Christian churches followed suit.

Marriage is still a civil concern, still due to laws about parentage and inheritance and so on. But it's a case of the churches, rather lately, trying to take control of marriage. The marriage license is still issued by the government, and not the churches. And no one is insisting that churches be forced to accept homosexuality within their own tradition.

By the way, I've been working on my genealogy, and I've noticed a lot of marriage certificates with unusual wording. There's a place for the male name. Then they want to know what gender the other person is. I'm positive that this isn't the 1600 version of allowing homosexual marriage, but I did find it interesting.

Nancy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
"It is the Democrat Party that wants the government to usurp the rights of churches who established marriage and make it a secular humanist thing."

No. Marriage is a 'legal' concept. It is a concept of parental rights, a concept of shared property rights (defined by the states), of divorce rules, and of inheritance.

It a concept that controls your shared 'entitlements' (ie, social securities), pensions, annuities, and how they are treated under tax law.

It has 'nothing' to do with the godthingies.

Depending what brand of 'faith' you have.....the Mormons believe marriage is forever. You better not have divorced and remarried or you'll have heck in heaven with two wives demanding equal attention. or more. Should we make that the law of the land?

It is the church that decided it could profit from the 3 times many folks actually show up in church

a) when your hatched (born = baptism and similar rituals to get you and your parents committed to a life of superstition and groveling)

b) when your matched - marriage

c) when your dispatched - funeral and the guilt trip of 'leave it to the church'...


The 'church' is the richest entity in the world with over a trillion in untaxed assets. It owns over 100 million in real estate in NYC alone.

Yet, only half of all Americans now 'believe' in religion or find a need for it.

The ever diminishing numbers continue to demand their narrow, 5000 year old viewpoints be taught in the public schools. The world is 4000 years old. Dinosaur bones were just buried in the ground to look old. The unicorn didn't make it on to the ark, but the AIDs virus did. But only 2. The sun revolves around the earth.

Sorry. I don't need a primitive sheepherder telling me what modern science is, and what I can and cannot do with my life. Nor telling my kids that evolution is 'all made up' and we have to teach creation science fiction theology in science class.

my 2c

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Education and churches go together like chocolate smothered in lard.

Thomas Jefferson said it somewhat more sagaciously:

"Priests dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
k

I remember a time when Democrats OWNED Texas, thanks to LBJ.


actually thanks more to Lincoln than LBJ
but did allow JFK to be elected


(>:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 44
I believe that the responsibility of educating our children should rest with the parents first, then the local community, the the larger community, etc. Not top-down from Washington. Where did Washington assume it had the right to indoctrinate our children? Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching.

This sounds so...crazy to me. You have no obligation to send your kids to public school. You can send them to private school instead. You can teach them at home if you like. No obligation. Actually you do have to demonstrate your kids are learning a minimum amount, but other that it can be Jesus 24/7 if you want.

Plus "Washington" has virtually no influence on curriculum. That's determined largely by your local/state school board. You know, the one you can run for if you don't like the curriculum. Or if that's too much trouble you can vote for like minded citizens.

What you are really saying is you disagree with the 1st Amendment and democracy in general. That's fine. But just say it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching.


So what?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

The Democrat Party stands for interfering in people's lives
------
Ummm...OK.

They aren't the ones suggesting that women should have a non-medically necessary, invasive (and I might add,



ummm it's a good guess that if they don't spell the name correctly,
they're just ranting
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can I repost this on my FB page?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, sure. I'd prefer it not be *linked*, but posted is fine. Might want to edit out the typos....

impolite
i cant spellz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
i'm a female business owner volume #560.


You didn't build your business. You are not a job creator.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Darn, Jedi - now I have the worst song of all time (even if it is about my home) going through my head as an ear worm...

"You built that city...
You built that city...
You buiolt that city on rock and roll..."

Must listen to something else to shake it!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Please don't diss Starship 1985.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nancy says

Now, if you'd said chocolate covered garlic. . .

Go to the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, CA next summer. Someone will sell you chocolate-covered garlic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Go to the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, CA next summer. Someone will sell you chocolate-covered garlic.

Go to the Stinkin' Rose in San Francisco any day of the week and get all that AND garlic ice cream.

MOI
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Myownigloo says

"Go to the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, CA next summer. Someone will sell you chocolate-covered garlic."

Go to the Stinkin' Rose in San Francisco any day of the week and get all that AND garlic ice cream.

That's a better idea. The Gilroy thing is a mob scene.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
Frydaze is being way too charitable, IMO.

Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching.

This, right off the bat in your first answer to Frydaze's question, stands out to me like crazy.

I mean, think deeply about this, honestly! Given the exclusion of religion from the public sector, education necessarily then becomes a secular humanist teaching. As if that is a bad thing?!

So you are saying that math, biology, physics, chemistry, US/world history, woodworking, auto shop, home economics, music, art, physical education, English, (for that matter, all languages that are taught in schools [Spanish, German, Mandarin, French, Japanese, Italian, etc.] should ALL somehow be taught in a religious context as opposed to a secular context? And this is a BAD thing?

How do you propose to teach trigonometry from a religious point of view?
How do you propose to teach Spanish from a religious point of view?
How do you propose to teach physical education from a religious point of view?
How do you propose to teach Creative Writing from a religious point of view?

Oh wait...we've got the Bible and the Qaran for that. Never mind that one.

To me, it seems like you want everyone's children taught by someone you'd like to sit down and have a beer with because they're "good people," never mind whether s/he happens to be any more well-informed on any particular subject than the child's parents or preachers. Personally, I want someone smarter than me to teach kids about physics and chemistry and art and music and writing. And I would be better at teaching math than many fellow parents I know who can't help their kids with 8th grade pre-algebra homework.

And by the way, that Bill Nye thing? Pretty similar to the whole Galileo situation.

kasha
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Has anyone heard a dispatch from Hell? Did it freeze over? Because I just rec'd a post by tele.

Jus' sayin'....I'm getting less and less certain about this godthingie by the second.

Kasha<--- waiting for the lightning to strike me down
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Happy balloon day, makasha!

Ishtar
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Kasha<--- waiting for the lightning to strike me down

Can't happen. You've got 'loons!

Pretty.

MOI
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
'ay, looky there, wouldja!!

They ARE pretty, if I do say so myself.

B-)

What were we talking about?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Late to this thread, but oh, so well said! Methinks you need a guest spot on TRMS or The Last Word :)
Print the post Back To Top