Why don't Americans have Evangelicals shut up?

[damyanti]

I see the call for censorship of the evangelicals [/COLOR]

That has been my point, everyone else is being censored except them.

And if you can give statements that make Bush sound like that he wasn't more wrong than other US presidents, .

As for the rest of your post...just proves my concerns are well founded. It is possible to be a religious person and respect the liberal ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.


"Fact of the matter is, anyone in America can within reason; so long as they are not inciting treason or revolt, say pretty much whatever they want to. Including the one's you don't agree with."

So why was Keith Olbermann made to shut up? What about all the statements from Bush and his cronies that unless you support him you are with the terrorists?

Its the conservatives who always yell foul not Liberals...and my beef is that liberals don't, not nearly as ferociously.
No one tried to force Bristol Palin to abort, but her mother, if given chance, will do everything in her power to force her religious beliefs on other young teenagers and force them to give birth when they don't want. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, but the aggressive way in which they want to legislature it is something I find very dangerous.

Anyway all of that is the matter of your personal policies and you can have your country any way you like - what would be nice, is if you let the rest of the world enjoy the same luxury. You think McCain/Palin ticket will be equally successful in matters of foreign policy? Who will negotiate with them, when all they are seen is as more of the same (Bush)? Who will respect them when they are condescending towards other world leaders? When Obama came to Europe there were rallies of support of unbelievable proportion. We don't want McCain to visit at all, and if he does, he can expect pretty much the same "welcome" Bush receives every time he imposes himself on us.

[hopperboo]

It is possible to be a religious person and respect the liberal ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Its the conservatives who always yell foul not Liberals...and my beef is that liberals don't, not nearly as ferociously.

No one tried to force Bristol Palin to abort, but her mother, if given chance, will do everything in her power to force her religious beliefs on other young teenagers and force them to give birth when they don't want. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, but the aggressive way in which they want to legislature it is something I find very dangerous.

Anyway all of that is the matter of your personal policies and you can have your country any way you like - what would be nice, is if you let the rest of the world enjoy the same luxury. You think McCain/Palin ticket will be equally successful in matters of foreign policy? Who will negotiate with them, when all they are seen is as more of the same (Bush)? Who will respect them when they are condescending towards other world leaders? When Obama came to Europe there were rallies of support of unbelievable proportion. We don't want McCain to visit at all, and if he does, he can expect pretty much the same "welcome" Bush receives every time he imposes himself on us.

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

[damyanti]

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

[Ragoczy]

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

The abortion question doesn't hinge on religion, it hinges on when life begins. It just so happens that religion provides some people with an answer to that question.

If you have a fundamental belief that life begins at conception, that from that point it is a unique, human life, then, whatever the source of that belief, you have a duty to oppose abortion and it's reasonable to attempt to make illegal what you believe is murder.

Their position is not to impose their religion on others, but to oppose what they believe is wholesale murder -- again, it's a reasonable position given that belief.

Unfortunately, the answer to when it's a human life isn't answerable. Personally, I have issues with the extremes on both sides of the debate.

I think it's ridiculous to argue that it's a human being right after conception and hypocritical to say "well, okay, we'll let you murder that baby if you were raped".

On the other side are the proponents of abortion on-demand in the third trimester. Arguing that at eight months it isn't a human baby and has no rights is disgusting and reprehensible to me.

Again, unfortunately, we have no measuring stick for where that line between blob of cells and baby actually lies. The question I ask is:

Given that our entire legal system is based on the premise that it's better to allow the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent, that doubt should always fall to the possibility of innocence, shouldn't the maybe-child get the same benefit as the maybe-innocent-murderer?

[hopperboo]

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

No, I didn't say things that were against religion should be against the law. I said I don't have to (nor does a country) have respect for it. Again, that is just my personal opinion. Many people believe those who are not tolerant and respectful of every lifestyle are close-minded and bad, when I don't see it that way at all. People form opinions of what is right based on religion and their own beliefs and upbringing. How respectful is it to throw everything one believes in away because someone might get some feelings hurt? Forming and opinion and backing up that opinion isn't close-minded. It's a choice. Sitting on the fence, hurling insults at people who dare to form an opinion is not respectful either. (That is meant as a general comment, not a personal insult to you).

As for who decides what religion is paramount, the USA was founded on Christian beliefs. Yes, it founded on the right to freedom of religion, but if push comes to shove, it was founded on Christian beliefs.

It became our business when said country has terrorists that attack us. If other countries don't want us interfering they should get their own extremists groups under control.

[craven]

hmmmmm i really did not want to respond any more to this thread as i though it had run its cause, but i do feel the need to reply to the last paragraph of the past post.


I would ask which country established, equipped and funded the young Osama Bin Laden's now labeled terror movement, answer yes the US, to fight the soviets i appreciate however Afghanistan a pretty much lawless nation did not expel al Qaeda, but then in reality what ability the Afghan taliban government actually had to so so is questionable given that to date the combined powers of many Western nations have also been unable to oust this US funded terror movement.

Also Iraq, again a US established military led dictatorship, Saddam Hussein being a proven CIA operative.

I do not condone either movement, but please do not state that once the terror is brought to US shores then the US administration has a god given right to execute regime change or attack sovereign nations.

Lets be honest amongst ourselves here it was always the US's business the moment it established both Osama Bin Ladens movement and empowered Saddam Hussein.

Modern world politics has to have a longer than 4 year shelf life, time and time again we are all seeing and living through the fallout of such short terminsim.

I really dont want to post anymore, i feel that this thread has been done to death, but do please free free to comment or disagree, we all have those wonderful rights.