The Republican National Convention

The First Amendment is what guarantees that Atheists can speak freely, and it's what keeps the government from becoming a Southern Baptist Church, even now.

It also is what guarantees that religious people can speak freely, you know. Religious tolerance is not a one-sided affair. It means that all religions (or lack thereof) should be tolerated. That includes tolerating those who base their political beliefs on their religious ones.

However, that is a discussion for a different thread, so why don't we take it there?

Kimball Kinnison

 

MMMM, from everything you've posted, nothing suggests that you're that undecided....

In my take, that is. I could be wrong, tho.

I would honestly be quite surprised if you ended up supporting Bush, from every post I've read from ya. Would I be wrong in my assessment?

BTW, I don't fault Clinton for anything other than not reacting properly to terrorism. Bush didn't do that either, pre-9/11. There's really no use going in the past to place blame. I guess Pataki wanted to make a old fashioned partisan swipe. I didn't really pay much attention, honestly, to what Pataki was saying.

It's how we are going to react to it now that matters, and we know who the solid principled and unwavering leader Bush is.

Agree with Bush or not, at least you know where the man stands.

 

"Religious tolerance is not a one-sided affair. It means that all religions (or lack thereof) should be tolerated."

I think I made that point on a previous page, when I quoted the First Amendment. I believe in tolerance of all faiths and speach.

"That includes tolerating those who base their political beliefs on their religious ones."

But this is going to far, K_K, or at least, providing a bridge for those who will go to far. The reason is that, while we should support and tolerate speach, we should not allow people like Bush to inject religious reasoning into policy so directly. This relates to the RNC, because he said himself last night, that freedom was a gift from the Almighty to humanity, and that we had a duty to spread such freedom - as in "Onward Christian Soldiers". The GOP platform also brings the issue up time and again.

So, it's fine to tolerate even the most ignorant and intolerant of speach, but this does not imply that speach should be tantamount to law - the constitution makes that clear enough, from its system of checks and balances and throughout its language and provisions. If the GOP has its way, Fundamentalist Christianity might very well become a State Religion very soon, and all kinds of social freedoms will evaporate under pro-life, anti-gay, pro-christian, police state, isolationist intolerance.

Sorry, just wanted to make that point. You're right, all of these topics should migrate to the other threads...

 

DM, what about what I said is nonsense?

The fact that this country remains divided, or that partisans like us are so polarized, we are both wasting our breath trying to convince each one another that the other guy is wrong?

Kerry made strong points in his speech last night. He slammed Cheney for attacking his fitness after five deferments, and he ended his remarks with a simple question to the american people:

"If you think the country is headed in the right direction, vote for Bush. If you think the country needs a new direction, move to us."

That just about sums it up. There's no "nonsense" about it.

Peace,

V-03