Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Said, the old white guy..
excon
|
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Said, the old white guy..
excon
Again I'd like to contrast that to the Obama preferrred method... which is to impose his pseudo-secular/liberation theology on the nation with edicts(unilaterally redefining what religion is ) and bureaucratic rulemaking.
Oh wait . He was given that authority from a Democrat majority House and a fillibuster proof Democrat Senate .
I can see your concern . Your guy does it so you think that Santorum naturally would also violate the Constitution.
Hello again, tom:
So, I guess your NON answer to my question means you absolutely believe that Santorum will instill a Theocracy, and you'll be THRILLED by it.
excon
Back to this old boogeyman, eh? No one, barring say Fred Phelps, WANTS a theocracy. I DO want my first amendment back.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
People ARE talking about the issue:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Dear Rick Santorum, America Elects Presidents Not Popes
Rick Santorum Announces He Doesn’t Believe In the Separation of Church and State
G'morning, Steve:
Since tom has stonewalled me, maybe YOU'LL be straightforward with me...
It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...
What's going to happen with that bill?
If it's NOT the boogyman I think it is, why don't you allay my fears? Look, on the other website people are asking questions, like if Obama goes to Mars, what will Michelle do...
MY question, isn't one of those... The scenario I point out is a VERY REAL possibility. I want to know what would happen to that bill.
Yes, yes, yes. Santorum WOULDN'T bring up the bill himself.. But, he took a LOT of flack over the weekend for caving on his "integrity" and his "principals". He said he WON'T do it again... Given that statement, if a bill to ban contraceptives passed BOTH houses of a Republican congress, Santorum WOULD sign it.
Tell me that won't happen...
excon
Exactly where in any of that did Santorum wish for a theocracy? Nowhere. I don't care what people are talking about, I'll welcome them back to reality if they'd like to join me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I agree wholeheartedly with what he said in the Post article:
Nothing wrong with that, he's spot on. Our constitution expressly forbids a state church, it does not ban God from government.Quote:
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."
love how you cling to them strawmen Ex. Santorum has been clear that he would not move to ban birth control in a number of interviews now. Either you believe him or you don't .
His biggest weakness in this whole thing ,in my view ,is how easy it is for the left to goad him into talking straight talk about his values instead of the vague pablum most other pols. Say.
It's a non-issue ex, I can't be any more straightforward than that. You admit repeatedly that no one is talking about it. It did not come up until Stephanoupolus blindsided the candidates at the debate. Shortly after that the mandate came about, so he knew something. You guys and the complicit media are making this crap up to make the Republicans look like knuckle-dragging neanderthals that want to ban birth control, ban abortion and put women at home. It's complete crap, ex.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
WE didn't make it an issue, you did. And you're so scared of this boogeyman you're missing the bigger picture, and that is what your guy is doing right now in front of your eyes, abolishing our religious rights. Sorry, I won't worship at the altar of the state any more than you'll submit to a theocracy. If we both can't come to an agreement on that then I can't help you.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Neither you or tom can assure me that it won't happen.. All you're saying is that nobody is TALKING about it happening.
Well, I am. You COULD assure me that it won't happen, by saying that YOU wouldn't support such a move, that YOU'D fight it all the way, that you DON'T want a Theocracy..
You COULD say those things.. But, you don't. Neither of you will. Which leads me to believe that you're HOPING such a scenario presents itself.
excon
Yawn... you are all over the map here. So now it's not about Santorum ;it's about me.
The only change in law I have suggested is in abortion ;and that's because it kills babies. You have never seen anything from me that indicates I would want a ban on contraception either . You really do have to exorcise your boogymen.
I flat out said I don't want a theocracy. I've said that repeatedly at various junctures, the coming Bush theocracy where he wa going to cancel the elections, didn't happen. I said it when the talk of "dominionists" came up last summer, and I said it today. I've repeatedly said that Roe is settled, it's not going anywhere, it's a moot point. And I'll say now, I don't want anyone to ban birth control. I have no issue with birth control, I'm not Catholic so I don't care if women take the pill. I draw the line at supporting abortion and abortifacients but my opposition to that is not an indication I would ban contraceptives. Just don't force me to pay for yours.
You however still won't join me in fighting for our first amendment rights, which I repeat, are being undermined under your nose. So let's talk about real issues like that, a budget that thinks debt at 900 percent of GDP is no big deal and how Obama is going to battle high gas prices by talking about it in a different way and growing algae, and the Obama scandals being swept under the rug by a complicit media.
So are you willing to discuss real problems are you content in fantasyland?
I have more... Again ;the only one in the political arena who is imposing his values on us is the President . He even went to the National Prayer Breakfast and spouted pseudo-Christianity to justify government actions . So who is the theocrat?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You can say I'm all over the map. You can get bored.. But, it doesn't change the fact that you won't answer my very simple question.
What would happen to the bill?
Now, you COULD answer me, or you can dance around some more. I expect more dancing. We BOTH know why.
excon
Your hypothetical is not realistic so it doesn't require a serious answer. There is no chance that such a bill would make it out of Congress even if the Congress was 100% Republican . As you guys have delighted in pointing out... The majority of the people favor contraception being legal.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Santorum COULD win. Your wing is just a few seats away from obtaining a filibuster proof majority in the Senate... That's not fantasy. Obama going to Mars is fantasy. A Republican super majority ISN'T.
In SPITE of your denials above, you STILL didn't answer my question. What would happen to the bill? It's an easy question. Santorum would sign it, or he wouldn't.
Now, you COULD keep on saying I'm bonkers... Or, you could just answer it.
excon
What would happen to your hypothetical bill? It would never make it out of committee. No one wants to ban contraceptives. As tom said, a vast majority of Americans oppose the idea and non-Catholics (who typically don't have an issue with birth control) represent twice the percentage of Christians than Catholics, FACT. It's a non-issue.
The only fact worth debating is the fact that your president wants to ban the church from the public square and as tom rightly said - and judging by his actions with the Obamacare mandate and past remarks - intends for the government to take over that role. He wants Big Brother to be our keeper and has no issue with trampling over our specifically enumerated rights in the process.
Again , I answered your questions more than once and I will not bow at the altar of government any more than you will a theocracy. Fantasyland or reality, your choice.
Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.
Do you still want to embrace personhood?
Tut
Great idea ! We'll just suspend rights when people act collectively . Good plan. Let's start with labor unions which collect due almost exclusively for the purpose of influencing politics .Quote:
Hi Tom, You might like to get rid of 'personhood' while you are at it. This is the core of the problem. That problem being that under the law a fetus needs to accumulate 'x' number of humanness points before it is legally able to be considered human enough to have rights.
This is just another reason why I am against this legal fiction. It provides a legal and fallacious account of what it is to be human.
Do you still want to embrace personhood?
This is the law in US Code 1:1... [which means the country recognized the CONCEPT of corporate "personhood " from it's beginning ].
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
It in fact had always been a given in this country until the left realized that some corporations were supporting their opposition . So they added the caveat that corporations can be 'persons' except when it comes to their First Amendment rights. No doubt that's the thinking behind the President's decrees from above about what a religion is.I'm sure in his view Religious institutions have no rights because they aren't people . So all their constitutional protections are at the whim and will and pleasure of the Presidency .
Now a baby on the other hand has always had an indisputable and unalienable right to life. This I know because if a women is assaulted and miscarries it's called 'fetal homicide ' or 'feticide'... at least in the vast majority of the states .
There is also Federal Laws that protect the unborn babies called the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act', which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any federal crimes of violence.
So in sum both corporations by their existence are entitled to constitutional guarantees... and babies are too.
What a fiction no corporation or legal entity other than a human is capable of acting on its "own". It is directed by humans and while it might be considered separate from the person who directs it, it cannot exist solely in its own right. If it could then a perpetuity has been created and that is against the basic tenets of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
OK I get it... unions ,trade associations ,charitable organizations ,political parties , No humans have rights when they pool their resources ,and act in unison for a common puropse . Their total right to influence society is granted through the power of the government . Is that what you really believe ? Sounds more like Communist China to me.
This is because you see individual rights as being of only one type; absolute. Am I correct in saying that you don't see entitlements as rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Corporation rights are important but they should not selectively be the rights a person enjoys. Corporations can enjoy 'rights' in the form of entitlements under state and or federal legislation. Corporations don't need to have selected absolute rights.
Jeremy Bentham said something like; Legal fiction is to law as theft to trade.
It can be changed or modified, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's what I have been saying all along. Your rights are being subject to a change in status.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I Googled the Unborn Victims Act. What good is this Act if it includes nearly everything but excludes abortion?
Even if what I have said above is completely and utterly wrong it still doesn't change the fact that abortion is legal and personhood is the basis of that legality
Tut
Tom, no one is saying they don't have rights. There are many countries in the world that don't have annunciated rights and are just as democratic as your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Your's is only one type of democratic system. Just because it doesn't follow your model this doesn't necessarily make it incapable of being democratic.
Isn't this a bit ethnocentric
Tut
You've got it Tut, Tom is applying ethnocentric solutions, therefore for Tom, Europe is undemocratic, China is positively draconian, Eqypt has dared to accuse americans of interferring, and I cannot imagine what he thinks we are doingQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello?! I am talking exclusively of the American system here . The 1st Amendment is quite clear that the national government SHALL NOT infringe on religious liberty or speech . No wiggle room .
Rights are absolute unless the infringe on competing rights.
In the case of abortion, the right to life is more important than... oh let's say.. the right to pursue happiness ?
Evidently Article VI, paragraph 3 has been Amended while I wasn't paying attention . Now it says "....but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States ....except ;devout Catholics need not apply." Catholic candidates for office will be considered only if they deny their faith in public
Uh yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that this particular thread was on U.S. politics. The only ethnocentrism I see is coming from non-Americans.
Persecution complex... http://images.proboards.com/new/rolleyes.gif
What is this inexplicable need you have to make crap up? Are you thirteen and incapable of an adult discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You mean making crap up like tom's post? Why didn't didn't you set your indignation on him?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No I mean like making crap up about us personally. I'm not playing your juvenile games, unlike you I have things to discuss that are real and that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So tom is allowed to make up crap and you give him a free pass? Gotcha.
Anyway your "discussions" are always the same: attacking anything liberal. Over and over again.
Not sure what cr@p I made up. If you mean my sarcasm about the changing of the religious test in the Constitution ,my only real fault was not engaging the sarcasm font.
See what I mean, that inexplicable need to make crap up about me? You've told that lie over and over and it's no more true today than it was the first time you said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I fail to see how defending my specifically enumerated constitutional right to freedom of religion is "attacking anything liberal". The first amendment is no respecter of political ideology and I welcome all who choose to defend it with me.
I was being sarcastic as well. Not sure what speech is all up in arms about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Geez, third time today making up crap about me. I'm just setting the record straight, I don't know what this "up in arms" nonsense is about. So do you have anything to add to the discussion or talking about me all you've got?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Of course you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"No wriggle room"--Not unless someone tries to change the status of those rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, what good are these rehetorical speeches when one of the most dangerous places for the unborn is in the womb.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Can someone explain to me why a corporation, ENTITY, THING, perhaps something registered under some corporations act has more rights than the unborn in terms of being a person.
We have a situation where an ACTUAL living organism (fetus) carn't even get past first base when it comes to personhood.
We can say, well a fetus that is six weeks old lacks most of the essential features of being a person, e.g. it isn't conscious or it doesn't feel pain-- Like--corporations actually have these attributes.
Again, can someone please explain this apparent absurtity? Perhaps it is the case that a corporation's right to free speech is more important.
Tut
TUT ,I have given my opinion of the court decision on abortion numerous times in the most graphic way permissible on this forum . When the government can remove such rights it slips from a land of liberty to a land of tyranny .
The only Constitutional way to change the status of enumernated rights is in the amendment process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are right about the amendment process in relation to enumerated rights. I think you are discovering that no legal system can function just on natural rights alone. The amendment process is an ongoing discovery when natural rights seem inadequate in particular situations. If this wasn't the case then you wouldn't have admendments. It is an ongoing discovery of what rights people ought to have.
Corporate personhood was concocted as means of making sure corporations were not disadvantaged in terms of natural rights. OK,so we let in one piece of legal fiction to overcomes legal disadvantages corporations might come up against when it comes to free speech, right to own property, etc etc.
However, when we attempt to introduce the same legal fiction in terms of rights of the unborn, it is far too impractical. Arguments such as there are too many problems with negative rights when it comes to the unborn.
Nothing is too hard when it is a corporation that wants these rights, but when it comes to the unborn we say, Oh, well; too many difficuilties make this impractical.
Bentham actually said, " Legal fiction is to the law as fraud is to property"
There are a number of fraudes going on here.
Tut
Tut give up, the whole thing is based on a fiction that we actually have rights. The only rights anyone has are those that have been forced on government. So let Tom have his fiction that he lives in a democratic utopia which is so good at defending rights that everyone needs a gun to survive
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM. |