Originally posted by Nash
Are you against any law limiting the use of firearms or is the whole idea of the people of a State, through their elected representatives, passing such a law that you find abhorrent?
[/b]
The right to bear arms is part of the Constitutional guarantees. You can't say that for abortion. So, this is an absurdly worded answer.
Beyond that, in the areas where States have jurisdiction over firearms, and States can and do pass restrictive gun laws (ie: California), I simply choose not to live in that State. I recognize their "State's Right" to pass the laws they desire, within the Constitution. It's their "choice".
And even beyond that, your answer was in response to Seagoon's reply to
your original question "What exactly is the difference between y'all? A question where "y'all" refers to Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists.
And in reference to that your answer becomes even more absurd. The people of SD, working within the Constitution through their elected representatives, passed legislation that will be reviewed and either endorsed or struck down by the highest civil court in the land. Compare that to Sharia and there is no comparison. At all. Obviously.
Another question, asked in good faith I'm so sure,
[/b]
And interestingly enough not answered. Again, you are the person making the totally absurd comparison equating Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists. You are the person outraged that in the "last week alone".
But I see you are merely against the SC ruling. Wah, wah.
Or are you implying that the Christian Fundamentalists have suborned the SC and taken it over with Roberts and Alito?
Because that is equally as absurd. This was a unanimous ruling, opinion written by BREYER with Alito abstaining because he wasn't on the SC during the arguments. It would appear that it was clearly decided on the law, not Christian Fundamentalism. Guess you're pissed about that, eh?
And now back to your strange questions. I was laying the foundation for religion's increased role in politics (as if this seriously needs edifying), and to you this is supposed to be my lamenting the fact that people voted for the candidate of their choice. And once again through your posing yet another false dichotomy.Hardly. The fact is that for many people, religion does play a role in their politics. The question before YOU, the man who equates Christian Fundamentalism with Muslim Fundamentalism, is "does the US Constitution allow religion to play a role in a person's politics"?
Obviously, it does because it is not specifically restricted.
So while your lamentations over "religion's increased role" are trendy, they are not new or valid. Were you around when John Kennedy the Catholic ran for President? I was; religion was out in the open in politics then for all to see. Despite the "fundamentalists" whipping up anti-Catholic fears, Kennedy still won.
It was nothing new then, either. And, as has been oft pointed out, one of the very first acts of the very first Senate of the US was to hire a chaplain.
No, I think the truth is it is not religion per se in politics that concerns you but rather.... suprise.... you don't want to see people you personally don't agree with in power. Congrats and welcome to the club. There's about 300 million of us or so.
that to the fundamentalists, it is not enough to be content with their own personal beliefs. They won't be happy until everyone shares them, or at least abides by them - if that means Monahan's creation of a town, or the pressure applied to a Democratically elected government to impose laws upon everyone, whether or not anyone else shares those same values.
[/b]
Oh, horsepuckey. Monahan can't
force ANYONE to share or abide in "his beliefs". One would have to
choose to live in that burg.
Further, you forget that while Monahan can set the rules at the get-go, there will, inevitably, be a Mayor and City Council that will be responsible for local ordinances. I think Mr. M is in for a big suprise when he sees what his town becomes in 20 years. Or far less.
In the same way, there is choice in government. Like lots of gun laws? Move to Cali. Don't like 'em? Live in Texas. Want abortions? Cali 'fer shure, dude. Don't like 'em? Maybe try SD, all the while remembering that while SD passed a law it wanted, it's going to be reviewed for Constituionality by the SC.
"Pressure" is applied to Democratically elected government every day. Someone, somewhere hires a lobbyist to impose laws upon
everyone, whether or not anyone else shares those same values. You act as if "religious" pressure is somehow different, new or special. It isn't. And in the end your personal freedoms to think, act and pray or not pray as you like are still and always under the shield of the Constitution.
Why are Liberals like me having to be the spokespeople regarding the dangers of any government's infringement on personal freedoms and individual rights?
[/b]
Because some of the things you hold so dear you only imagine have Constitutional standing as an individual right? Abortion being just one example?
The gradual encroaching upon and erosion of them?
[/b]
Because as so many have pointed out here before it's only a few that have somehow noticed this encroachment and erosion? Because it's only a few that don't have faith that any such encroachment and erosion that does occur will (eventually) be rectified in the Courts?
Why are conservatives like you and lazs
[/b]
Because we aren't? See above. A lot of this seems to exist solely in your mind, IMO... and I certainly hope that it's still okay to hold one contrary to yours.
And Conservative? I take it as a good sign that you lump me into the Conservative camp and the true conservatives think I'm too liberal.
Anyway, in the end, your long litany of sorrows apparently boils down to you agreeing it's IS the way things are supposed to work Constitutionally, but
you don't like those things.
Gotcha.
