96Qowner wrote:So, if McCain is elected and appoints another couple "conservative" Supreme Court justices, and the Court actually rehears Roe v Wade and actually overturns it (VERY unlikely) ...

What exactly would be the harm? Some States would ban abortions, just like they have banned smoking in cigar stores, other States would allow it.

Choice - a GOOD thing. I have no sympathy with those that whine about how they can't be bothered to drive to another State to have their child aborted. If you want something badly enough, you can sure get your behind to a State where it's legal.

So, why be afraid that McCain will appoint more conservative judges? Big deal. Is there some OTHER reason to be afraid of conservative Supreme Court justices?

Yes there is!

Here are a couple of reasons to keep consrvative judges off the Supreme Court.

Gay Rights

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

Gun control

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

I don't need the FCC or other groups telling me what I can listen to or what movies I might want to see!

http://washingtontimes.com/new...erger/

Next they'll want to deprive those that watch HBO & other cable channels because some moral keepers don't approve of the content?The merger of Sirius and XM has gone on longer than Exxon/Mobil, SBC/AT&T and the debate over the war in Iraq. Only because of conservatives accepting money from broadcasters that are afraid of losing their audience the way the FCC regulated broadcast networks have lost most of their audience to cable and satellite.

Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and Howard Stern rules. They tell us the truth.

Telcoman

Modified by telcoman at 5:17 AM 6/26/2008
Modified by telcoman at 5:19 AM 6/26/2008

telcoman wrote:
Yes there is!

Here are a couple of reasons to keep consrvative judges off the Supreme Court.

I'm going to address this one point at a time, because as I generally agree with you, I feel the need to pick this apart a little bit.

telcoman wrote:Gay Rights

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

^^This is indeed an outrage and one very good reason why the gay community is so adamant about legal marriage as opposed to "domestic partnerships". It was, however, unclear to me as to whether or not this happened because they were gay or if it could have just as easily happened if they had been 2 straight people who had been together for 20 years but unmarried. They might just be "playing a card" to get $75,000, but then again if it was my example scenario, I'd be just as pissed and might seek damages too. These rules need to be revised for BOTH situations, as marriage itself is just becoming less common and needn't be a prerequisite to see your dying loved ones on their hospital bed.

telcoman wrote:Gun control

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

^^I don't really see what this has to do with gun control, per se. Yes, it was a crime committed with a firearm, but gun crimes and gun control aren't necessarily linked in as linear a fashion as some would like to believe. I'm generally pro gun rights (aside from the stupidest needless uber-weapons). I won't go into a huge in-depth summary of my view on the issue, I'll save that for the dedicated threat I think it deserves, but I will say that I think that strict sentencing for gun crimes is probablythe best compromise.

telcoman wrote:I don't need the FCC or other groups telling me what I can listen to or what movies I might want to see!

http://washingtontimes.com/new...erger/

Next they'll want to deprive those that watch HBO & other cable channels because some moral keepers don't approve of the content?The merger of Sirius and XM has gone on longer than Exxon/Mobil, SBC/AT&T and the debate over the war in Iraq. Only because of conservatives accepting money from broadcasters that are afraid of losing their audience the way the FCC regulated broadcast networks have lost most of their audience to cable and satellite.

^^I couldn't agree more, and I think this is a great example of the social conservatives trying to "legislate morality". I think it's ridiculous for the following reasons:

1.) The right is traditionally AGAINST government intereference in business affairs, and thus for the right to be calling FOR intereference in a merger on "moral" grounds is preposterous. This is why I'm not a registered Republican anymore, because idiots like this have taken over the party and distorted it from a real conservative force into the morality police.

2.) I am very much FOR the right to produce objectionable material, be it raunchy radio, porno, or violent video games. It should be confined to channels wherein you need to be a consenting paying adult to get it, but other than that, trying to legislate it out of existence is moronic. The people who want to get rid of Howard Stern are the same people who think Prohibition is a good idea.

Ultimately, in response to this last issue, I will re-affirm my strongly held belief that it is NOT the responsibility of the government to guide the "morality" of its citizens. I'm not sure how any TRUE conservative (i.e. pro small government) could concievably disagree.

telcoman wrote:Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and Howard Stern rules. They tell us the truth.

That's all I needed to read to confirm what I already suspected about your intellectual capacity.

96Qowner wrote:So, why be afraid that McCain will appoint more conservative judges? Big deal. Is there some OTHER reason to be afraid of conservative Supreme Court justices?

Well-said.

While limited-view non-thinkers like you-know-who (see his posts above) are all for a free-for-all, they'll be the first to whine when that array of permissiveness bites them in the a$$.

I don't agree with legislation of morality - But I AM pissed that my kids can flip on the tube and witness things I'd prefer they not witness (yet) on regular programming.

Yes, there are those who will spout some asinine nonsense like:

-They're gonna be exposed to it anyway-You're a bad parent for not monitoring their TV time-It's good for them to see how the real world works-You can't impose your outdated morals on them

As I always do when someone attempts (and fails) to disagree with this point, let's carry it out to its extreme, which it where it'll eventually wind up:

Why not televise executions? How about some simulated rapes? Maybe a little prime-time hate crime (the libbies will FREAK on that one)... How's about some graphic pedophilia, maybe some more heavy-duty misogyny (look it up, Telco), a little gay-bashing, and definitely a show with nothing but puppies and chinchillas being tossed in a wood chipper.

Don't like those ideas? Then you're not REALLY for deregulation. Think all that would make great fare after the 5pm news? Then don't cry when something non-libbie-friendly offends you, because we conservatives can "push buttons" too, baby.

Good for you for bringing up those examples. Keep in mind, however that conservative judges are not, by definition, religious fanatics.

You bring up the social issues, which are defined as much by those that steadfastly resist social morality, as those who steadfastly push for it. Your post has a definite anti-morality fanaticism to it, if you'll notice, and it's in response to a post which had no fanaticism in it at all - kind of has an overkill air to it. I say this just to cause you to consider your point of view as well as the religious nuts'.

I am not a morality nut. Philosophically, I tend to agree that gays should be able to marry just like anyone else. I'm not so sure why that's exactly the same thing as MY marriage, though. As far as I understand, Gays can get as married as they want right now - all the legal protections - they just have to fill out some extra paperwork. What gays want is for US TO RECOGNIZE that their marriage is the same as any other marriage. That's a social moral issue, not a legal one.

I think gun control is inane and a total waste of everyone's time. Criminals don't obey laws - duh. No sense in passing laws they aren't going to obey, whether they're Constitutional or not. And I have no personal objection to bad words and ideas.

But I notice that a lot of people feel passionately otherwise. Me? - not so passionate. I am a loyal Republican, in spite of my social liberalism. I don't think government EVER does a better job than the private sector or charities. EVER. I simply can't comprehend people that do, and since Democrats consistently look first to government to solve problems, I just shake my head in amazement and continue to vote Republican. I can tolerate the religious whack jobs a whole lot better than I can tolerate Socialists. Religious whack jobs don't take money out of my pocket and waste it on the people they decide need it more than me.

The most important thing to remember is that we need to respect Americans who disagree with us. Even if 80% of us don't smoke, we need to respect that 20% who do. It's shameful, not amusing, to see them ostracized from public society. If we can outlaw public smoking, we can sure outlaw Howard Stern, no? And I noticed in our local smoking debate, that it was the liberal types who were most passionately vocal about outlawing it even in cigar stores. Now, no smoker is allowed to work in a place that allows smoking.

In any case, I don't see how religious fanaticism and morality has much to do with Constitutional Law. I wouldn't expect "conservative" judges to have any particular sympathies to the religious right. I would simply expect them to resist efforts to re-interpret the Constitution so that fanatical anti-morality folks can make laws giving them special privileges and protections.

I concur with all ^ that, nearly word-for-word.

Sometimes it's important to go a little overboard, if only for effect.

While I'm no longer GOP, I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative, non-religious but with a strong faith.

Your point on smoking is spot-on, and clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of the Left. A clear case of "freedoms for us", not "freedom for all".

And you're also right about conservative justices being appointed. As we saw in another thread, even liberals can clearly see the flawed thinking and reasoning of their "hero", Justice Stevens.

AZhitman wrote:
Well-said.

While limited-view non-thinkers like you-know-who (see his posts above) are all for a free-for-all, they'll be the first to whine when that array of permissiveness bites them in the a$$.

I don't agree with legislation of morality - But I AM pissed that my kids can flip on the tube and witness things I'd prefer they not witness (yet) on regular programming.

Yes, there are those who will spout some asinine nonsense like:

-They're gonna be exposed to it anyway-You're a bad parent for not monitoring their TV time-It's good for them to see how the real world works-You can't impose your outdated morals on them

As I always do when someone attempts (and fails) to disagree with this point, let's carry it out to its extreme, which it where it'll eventually wind up:

Why not televise executions? How about some simulated rapes? Maybe a little prime-time hate crime (the libbies will FREAK on that one)... How's about some graphic pedophilia, maybe some more heavy-duty misogyny (look it up, Telco), a little gay-bashing, and definitely a show with nothing but puppies and chinchillas being tossed in a wood chipper.

Don't like those ideas? Then you're not REALLY for deregulation. Think all that would make great fare after the 5pm news? Then don't cry when something non-libbie-friendly offends you, because we conservatives can "push buttons" too, baby.

I'll take a shot at this one.

1.) I don't think anyone is really arguing to expand the risque-ness of what is available for viewing on normal broadcast television channels. If they are, then they're far outside the mainstream.

2.) All newer televisions have V-chip capability allowing you to decide precisely what your children can and cannot watch. Thus, there is no need to limit the more risque programming on networks like HBO or late-night comedy central when any viewer with kids can easily block it.

3.) I'm not sure I'd have an issue with televised executions so long as it is presented in a format wherein viewers have the option to block it, like anything else objectionable. Frankly, the only reason I DON'T support the idea of televising executions is that I think it will add more political support to the anti-death-penalty cause, and I am generally pro-death penalty.

4.) As for "prime time hate crime", I see no issue whatsoever with hate-related material being on television. Freedom of speech works both ways. The Right doesn't want risque material and the Left doesn't want anything non-PC, but in the end both need to learn to live with it. Again, if you don't like it, V-Chip it or just don't watch. This also applies to misogynistic stuff and gay-bashing. None of this material violates any laws and thus there's no reason why it shouldn't be on air if there is a demand. Hell, with proper comedic treatment it can be hysterical, so long as people retain a sense of humor.

5.) Stuff like puppies through a wood chipper or televised pedophilia violate other laws of our nation (animal cruelty and pedophila laws, respectively). Obviously no one is going to support televising this stuff unless they actually support DOING this stuff, in which case they're already a criminal or a potential criminal by definition. Obviously, the televising OR the "doing" of either one of these would never, ever, ever be legal under any administration.

Now, if it wasn't actually performed but still achieved through some sort of special effects (i.e. real puppies didn't get chopped or actors over 18 portray children being molested), then we're back to square one. Again, V-Chip it and STFU.

For the benefit of everyone else (as Hitman knows better already), I'm not laying into him here, I just like to lay out the opposing side of anything and everything regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

...but I LIKE my 1999 50" Toshiba, dammit!

Hash, you can't MAKE me buy a new TV!! DISCRIMINATION!!! I'm callin' Oprah!! AAAUUUHGGHGHGHHH!!!!

HashiriyaS14 wrote:Freedom of speech works both ways. The Right doesn't want risque material and the Left doesn't want anything non-PC, but in the end both need to learn to live with it.

That was actually the point I was getting at.

I don't really approve of all the risque stuff on TV but I "deal" with it.... but let me start a gay-bashing, race-baiting, misogynist TV show and watch the Libbies cry foul!

(Actually, I'm sure it'd be a hit - But it'll never happen, given the leanings of those in charge of studios and production... )

AZhitman wrote:
Why not televise executions? How about some simulated rapes? Maybe a little prime-time hate crime (the libbies will FREAK on that one)... How's about some graphic pedophilia, maybe some more heavy-duty misogyny (look it up, Telco), a little gay-bashing, and definitely a show with nothing but puppies and chinchillas being tossed in a wood chipper.

Don't like those ideas? Then you're not REALLY for deregulation. Think all that would make great fare after the 5pm news? Then don't cry when something non-libbie-friendly offends you, because we conservatives can "push buttons" too, baby.

"Why not televise executions?" Yes why not? For that matter why is there a prohibition of news media showing dead bodies of soldiers being shipped back to Delaware?

"How about some simulated rapes? " Its available on p0rn sites. I'm not interested but some adults may?

"How's about some graphic pedophilia, maybe some more heavy-duty misogyny . "Pedophilia is clearly against the law.

"definitely a show with nothing but puppies and chinchillas being tossed in a wood chipper. "Also clearly against the law.

"a little gay-bashing" Why would anyone want to do that?

Let us keep in mind that it was the so called conservative moral christians that were members of the Klan, tried to hang on to segregation, continued to prevent Black Americans from voting, saw nothing wrong with blowing up black churches with little children inside and they still want to impose their misguided logic on others?

For those that object to television, movies and other forms of entertainment you clearly need to monitor what your children watch and what they do. That is the responsibility of being a parent.If Lawrence Welk and Disney appeals to your houshold then you can block everything else.

Sorry AZhitman we are never going to agree. But I do enjoy arguing with you Gotta go, the replay of the Howard Stern show is starting.BTW, the History of Howard Stern will be on Sirius all next week while some of the shows members are off to entertain the troops in Iraq.

Telcoman

AZhitman wrote:I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative, non-religious but with a strong faith.

Me too!, and we're not the only ones. Most of the Republicans I know also fall into this category. We're probably Nixon's Silent Majority.

I'm startled that people don't recognize that this is what John McCain is, too. He's had to moderate his public positions (flip-flop) in the past couple years to make a Presidential run for President as a Republican, but I don't believe he has any passion for religious moral issues. The one important one is abortion, which he has been consistent about for his entire career.

I find the entire idea of McCain's candidacy intriguing. For a long time, I've thought that if the Republican Party could move to the center, it could own the country for years. Most Americans are classic Libertarians, at heart. And since the Democratic Party absolutely refuses to give up Socialism, they'll never be Libertarians. The Republican Party could do it, and McCain is the man to lead us that direction.

telcoman wrote:
"a little gay-bashing" Why would anyone want to do that?

Why not? It's OK to bash people for their faith, why not bash for where they put their genitals?

You prattle on about those who "impose their misguided logic on others", yet see nothing wrong with "subjecting people to that which they might find disgusting or offensive".

See, it works both ways. Besides, you're not prohibited from doing anything that makes you happy, so why do you care? What are you missing out on? Have you been wronged?

Don't fret, brother. The "silent majority" will take care of you in your old age... We're more numerous than you think.

96Qowner wrote:For a long time, I've thought that if the Republican Party could move to the center, it could own the country for years. Most Americans are classic Libertarians, at heart. And since the Democratic Party absolutely refuses to give up Socialism, they'll never be Libertarians. The Republican Party could do it, and McCain is the man to lead us that direction.

I agree 100%, except I think we'll need more than just Johnny Mac. More will have to step into the limelight.

96Qowner wrote:to make a Presidential run for President

As opposed to a Vice-Presidential run for President?

Or a Presidential run for Vice-President?

Or a Presidential run for the governor of Oklahoma?

Sorry....had to

Anyway, Hitman, if you have a BIG TV from 1999, it's possible that it *does* have a V-Chip in it. All sets after January 2000 definitely do, but some larger older sets do as well.

And yes, I agree that the left would go nuts if your theoretical program hit airwaves. Unfortunately, they might also succeed in getting it off the air, but I think that would be a hypocrisal travesty of free media.

96QOwner: I DO think that in the future, to survive, the GOP will have to more closely resemble the Libertarian party. As the "religious right" moves ever further right of center, their mainstream viability will slowly diminish. This leaves the rest of the GOP with no course of action other than to move to center and try to grab maybe the most right-leaning 20-30% of Democrats.

Honestly, this is why I want to see a Democratic President and Congress for the next 4 years, in hopes of forcing a serious restructuring of the GOP and their message.

The "Moral Majority" is nothing more than a reactionary movement with its orgins as opposition to the 1960's counterculture. It will fall on the scrap heap of history as it becomes more and more extremist, as it has done for the last few decades. They must be forced to the margins.

If, as you say (and as I also predict), the Dems are unable to shed their fondness for socialism and fiscal liberalism, I think that the new resultant "centrist" GOP would crush them for the forseeable future. This would make me a very happy man.

EDIT: telcoman, please stop agreeing with me and just let me do the arguing. You're killing me!

HashiriyaS14 wrote:96QOwner: I DO think that in the future, to survive, the GOP will have to more closely resemble the Libertarian party. As the "religious right" moves ever further right of center, their mainstream viability will slowly diminish. This leaves the rest of the GOP with no course of action other than to move to center and try to grab maybe the most right-leaning 20-30% of Democrats.

Honestly, this is why I want to see a Democratic President and Congress for the next 4 years, in hopes of forcing a serious restructuring of the GOP and their message.

The "Moral Majority" is nothing more than a reactionary movement with its orgins as opposition to the 1960's counterculture. It will fall on the scrap heap of history as it becomes more and more extremist, as it has done for the last few decades. They must be forced to the margins.

If, as you say (and as I also predict), the Dems are unable to shed their fondness for socialism and fiscal liberalism, I think that the new resultant "centrist" GOP would crush them for the forseeable future. This would make me a very happy man.

I take slight quarrel with your "survive" comment. I think the Republican Party is probably more viable than the Democrats. Democrats remain the same - more government, more taxes, more burden on business, less military, yawn. The Republicans are the ones experiencing change.

Of course, if you mean that Republicans can't survive as long as they remain so closely associated with religious extremism, then I totally agree - that's gotta end. But, politically, power is better than no power. Actually, the proper definition of politics, is the struggle for power. The religious right brought Republicans to power, and that's a good thing. I don't want to see Congress controlled by Democrats, and I don't want to see a Democrat in the Presidency.

But the religious right has to drop out of the limelight. No more pandering to the extremists. I'd gladly trade the Moral Majority for the Moderate Center.

Oh, and heheh, damn you, now I have to leave my typo unedited, because your post won't make any sense if I don't.

More proof that we've got a damn smart Mod staff.

(...typos notwithstanding...)

96Qowner wrote:
I take slight quarrel with your "survive" comment. I think the Republican Party is probably more viable than the Democrats. Democrats remain the same - more government, more taxes, more burden on business, less military, yawn. The Republicans are the ones experiencing change.

I used the word "survive" because at the moment, it seems to me that the GOP is losing many of the centrists to the Democrats, and if Obama wins in November it will be due to this "centrist flight".

If the centrists stay with the Democrats long-term, the the GOP will really have lost it's viability and be relegated to a far-right niche organization that is incapable of placing candidates in office due to an insufficiently broad base.

I don't think that this is going to happen long-term, but it's certainly what's happening now. It is also definitely what happened with the Democrats retook the House.

Viability is directly linked to electability, and at the moment Democrats are proving on average to be more electable due to their courting of the political center.

I sincerely hope that the GOP gets with the program. SOMEONE is going to have to get left off the radar. It can either be the extremists on the right or the extremists on the left, but courting the center is going to decide the matter.

im on dialup and so its not possibnle for me to read the enitre thread. just wanted to add my two cents. please go and watch Lake of Fire. its about abortion in the US and the two sides.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0841119/htt ... b6h0lsiQcw

personally, although im against it because i feel its the easy way out for the promiscous nature of our culture, i also believe that an absolute, religion based ban, would be detrimental to our society as a whole. its good bye clinics, hello coat hangers. its incredibly sad that our country's future rests on promised nominations like these.

Tariq,I dont think a ban on abortion would be a total ban. I think even religious people or pro lifers recognize the need for limitied Abortions in certain situations.

Also, with out delving too much into a religious debate, how does Islam view the practice of Abortion?

Cold_Zero wrote:Tariq,I dont think a ban on abortion would be a total ban. I think even religious people or pro lifers recognize the need for limitied Abortions in certain situations.

Also, with out delving too much into a religious debate, how does Islam view the practice of Abortion?

very briefly, islam believes that only god can give life and only god can take it away (murder, suicide, etc) all against the religion. as for abortion, it is a form of murder. the only instance where i know it is legal, is when the life of the mother is in danger and it is medically necessary to abort the pregnancy. other than that, including rape victims, the pregnancy must come to term.

I kind of thought that, but thank you for confirming that...bud

Cold_Zero wrote:Tariq,I dont think a ban on abortion would be a total ban. I think even religious people or pro lifers recognize the need for limitied Abortions in certain situations.

Also, with out delving too much into a religious debate, how does Islam view the practice of Abortion?

Cold_Zero

I am certainly not an authority on any religion but in my opinion religious fundementalism of most religions is pretty extreme. In some Islam countries woman are stoned to death for a so called improper relationship with a male. Some do not allow woman and men not married to associate with each other. Other religions do not allow woman to lead in a service. It is for this reason that the framers of our constitution sought to create a society with separation of church and state. Our citizens certainly have the right to worship how they wish. My objection is do not try to force your beliefs on others that do not agree.Whether its abortion, morality, gun ownership, I do not want to see others imposing their beliefs on everyone else. If certain citizens get a warm fuzzy feeling walking around with a gun in their hands I suppose thats okay. I'm just glad to live in an area where that is not okay. Same with abortion.The need for abortion in certain circumstances is best left to the woman, her partner or husband and the doctor. It is no one else's business. Anyone whose religion says it is wrong need not have one. That is what freedom of religion is about.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:My objection is do not try to force your beliefs on others that do not agree.Whether its abortion, morality, gun ownership, I do not want to see others imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

While I concur with the majority of your post, here's the issue this raises:

The above leaves us open to such things as polygamy and child molestation.

You (likely) and I believe it to be wrong.

However, why is that? MORALITY.

Is it because of some magical number (age)? Well, that's a function of beliefs. What's OK in one country is not OK here. In many places, there is no real clear-cut "age of consent".

Bottom line is, you're gonna be forcing your MORALITY-BASED beliefs on others who may not agree.

When I was supervising a caseload of convicted sex offenders, I saw many cases of Central American men come through the courts... many were charged with statutory rape. Victim (whether consensual or not) was under 18... Range was 12-17.

Guess what? Not an issue in their culture.

So, we impose our beliefs on them.

See? Can't pick and choose, brotha.

AZhitman wrote:
While I concur with the majority of your post, here's the issue this raises:

The above leaves us open to such things as polygamy and child molestation.

You (likely) and I believe it to be wrong.

However, why is that? MORALITY.

Is it because of some magical number (age)? Well, that's a function of beliefs. What's OK in one country is not OK here. In many places, there is no real clear-cut "age of consent".

Bottom line is, you're gonna be forcing your MORALITY-BASED beliefs on others who may not agree.

When I was supervising a caseload of convicted sex offenders, I saw many cases of Central American men come through the courts... many were charged with statutory rape. Victim (whether consensual or not) was under 18... Range was 12-17.

Guess what? Not an issue in their culture.

So, we impose our beliefs on them.

See? Can't pick and choose, brotha.

Ok, I'm going to dive into this one also.

A.) Child molestation is not, technically, a "morality" based belief, it is rooted in the law of the land that states that anyone under 18 is not self-responsible. Child molestation involves lack of consent by definition, as because they're minors, even if they voice consent it doesn't count, as they're not responsible for themselves yet.

Thus, it is technically an infringement on the rights of others, as you're doing something to someone who cannot legally consent to it. This is thus then not a subjective morality issue but rather a very clear cut objective violation of the law.

Since the child can't speak for themeslves and thus they can NEVER legally "consent" to any activity, ANY sexual activity with a minor is technically rape.

B.) I hate to say it, but anyone who is arguing for allowing gay marriage, abortion, legalization of weed, or for that matter personal firearms ownership, needs to technically be arguing FOR polygamy as well. Polygamy being illegal is purely a religious judgement against a certain group of people and TECHNICALLY, the United States is violating "freedom of religion" by telling 3 or 4 consenting adults that they can't be legally married to one another.

Honestly, from a legal perspective, polygamy between ADULTS has a better justification to exist than even gay marriage as polygamy has a solid grounding in a fairly established religion.

Obviously, in the cases where they're practicing polygamy with underage girls, you should see "Point A" above, as that violates an objective law of the land.

Thus, if I was ever confronted with a situation wherein I needed to vote between a "for" and "against" polygamy (between ADULTS) candidate, all other opinions equal, I would feel obligated by principle to vote "for".

AZhitman wrote:
While I concur with the majority of your post, here's the issue this raises:

The above leaves us open to such things as polygamy and child molestation.

You (likely) and I believe it to be wrong.

However, why is that? MORALITY.

Is it because of some magical number (age)? Well, that's a function of beliefs. What's OK in one country is not OK here. In many places, there is no real clear-cut "age of consent".

Bottom line is, you're gonna be forcing your MORALITY-BASED beliefs on others who may not agree.

When I was supervising a caseload of convicted sex offenders, I saw many cases of Central American men come through the courts... many were charged with statutory rape. Victim (whether consensual or not) was under 18... Range was 12-17.

Guess what? Not an issue in their culture.

So, we impose our beliefs on them.

See? Can't pick and choose, brotha.

You raise excellent points. As far as Polygamy it is against the law in this country so it doesn't matter what some Mormon followers believe. If they want to live in this country...well one wife is enough. I can speak from experience on that one

As far a child molestation, those from other countries should be aware of our laws but if I were on a jury in a case like that as long as the sex was consentual, and cultural in the natives country I think I would have a hard time voting guilty with a 16 or 17 year old. Younger than that would make the decision more difficult for me

telcoman wrote:
Cold_Zero

I am certainly not an authority on any religion but in my opinion religious fundementalism of most religions is pretty extreme. In some Islam countries woman are stoned to death for a so called improper relationship with a male. Some do not allow woman and men not married to associate with each other. Other religions do not allow woman to lead in a service. It is for this reason that the framers of our constitution sought to create a society with separation of church and state. Our citizens certainly have the right to worship how they wish.

Well, since Islam and its treatment of women were NOT a blip on America's radar at the time of the founding of this country (to be honest it hasnt been an issue until the Taliban took over in Afghanistan), I find what you say little hard to believe. If you were to look at America in the 1700's your view of this country at the time of the founding of the Constitution may be shattered. The founders were not worried about Islam, its treatment of women nor religious fanaticism. They were worried about another despotic and abusive Government forming in this country, just like the one they shook off with King of England.The First Amendment was setup to keep the State out of the Church's business . "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" See what it says, CONGRESS (not the church) shall make no law...

The term 'Separation of Church' came much later, after the framers, from a 1940's Supreme Court Ruling. The term 'A Wall of Separation' in which Jefferson coined refers to the Free Exercise Clause of this Amendment and was used to put at ease the Danbury Baptist Associations' fears that Congress would start to legislate certain aspects of religious practices. It does not mean that our government is devoid of religious people nor devoid of people who use their religious morality and ethics to form and shape the Laws of the land. The United States of America has a rich Judeo Christian heritage. Most of the Founding Fathers of this country were church going Christians who used the Bible and their Christian Faith to sculp this country. What they did not do is setup an official State Church, nor a Theocracy. Thomas Jefferson with the help of the First Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg (A Lutheran Minister) established Protestant church services in the Capitol Building that where held until after the end of the Civil War. Thomas Jefferson has been know to use Federal Funds to build churches in Virginia and when we negotiated Peace Treaties with Native American tribes he put in federal monies to send Christian Missionaries to the Native Americans.

Quote »My objection is do not try to force your beliefs on others that do not agree.Whether its abortion, morality, gun ownership, I do not want to see others imposing their beliefs on everyone else. If certain citizens get a warm fuzzy feeling walking around with a gun in their hands I suppose thats okay. I'm just glad to live in an area where that is not okay. Same with abortion.The need for abortion in certain circumstances is best left to the woman, her partner or husband and the doctor. It is no one else's business. Anyone whose religion says it is wrong need not have one. That is what freedom of religion is about. Telcoman [/quote]Look man, I get it.. you want 'Freedom FROM Religion', not 'Freedom OF Religion.' Freedom of Religion is just that.. You can not infringe in my right to my religious expression. It doesnt mean that you can live in your own section of this country and expect not have to hear anything about religion. No offense man, but we use to look down our noses at NJ when I lived in NY. So if it makes you warm and fuzzy living in New Jersey then I guess I cant expect to understand. For the most part we all choose where we live, for better or for worse. I myself feel much better when Repoman, myself and our friends are packing. And I am glad that my state government trusts its people with such an important privilege, the ability to defend themselves in public.

Another reason why religion has no business in our lives!

Too many wackos in my opinion!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...world

Thats messed up..... All I have to say about that. As far as the abortion rights... well I'll share a short story.

I was with this girl for over 2 years and we had plans of getting married and what not... Well she got preg by me obviously but never told me. She went and had an abortion killing what would have been my child and used that as an excuse to leave me. I am strongly against abortion's after this whole incident and think that you should have to have consent from both people not just the woman carrying the child. I waisted 2 years caring for a girl that ended up killing my son or daughter... How am I suppose to live with that answer me that?

telcoman wrote:Another reason why religion has no business in our lives!

Too many wackos in my opinion!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...world

I assume you mean organized religion has no business in our lives.

But I would be careful painting with such a wide brush, religious people into a corner. The same can be done with you and your liberal brethren.

cmoody2006 wrote:Thats messed up..... All I have to say about that. As far as the abortion rights... well I'll share a short story.

I was with this girl for over 2 years and we had plans of getting married and what not... Well she got preg by me obviously but never told me. She went and had an abortion killing what would have been my child and used that as an excuse to leave me. I am strongly against abortion's after this whole incident and think that you should have to have consent from both people not just the woman carrying the child. I waisted 2 years caring for a girl that ended up killing my son or daughter... How am I suppose to live with that answer me that?

cmoody2006

I am sorry to hear your story. I don't know if her religion played a part in her decision or what her relationship was with her parents but I suspect she felt she had no one to confide in?

Which brings me back to my argument that most parents are either uncomforable or not willing to discuss sex education with their children. Therefore it is best left to trained professionals in our public schools where children receive facts, counseling, birth control and guidence on how to properly handle these types of situations. Abortion should be a last resort but available after consultation with the parties involved and the doctor. If both of you were not using any form of birth control then you were both kind of foolish. The subject of pregnancy should have come up for discussion when you began a sexual relationship and had thoughts of marriage to her.If you still care for her, love her, etc, perhaps you can write her a letter and tell her so. Are you able to reach her parents? Perhaps informing them that you love their daughter might help? I just hope they are not gun avocates? Just my $.02

Good luck

Telcoman