rfenst wrote:Jeff,
Far be it from you to ever lob a grenade. LOL! But, OK...
A pilot/captain can like whoever he/she wants. No problem there. It is his/her ship.
Yes, in this country our religious beliefs can be made public. I am truly thankful for that. They also aren't required to be public and one has the right not to tell anyone their religious beliefs.
Ummm...no.
I have every right to tell you your religious beliefs. I have all the right in the world to tell you my religious beliefs, whether you want to hear it or not. What I don't have the right to do is behead you over your objections to my telling you your beliefs, or my beliefs.
I can say pretty much whatever I want to say about your religious beliefs, what your religious beliefs should be, and so on. I am a private citizen. It is my inalienable right.
I even have the right not to vote for you based off of those religious beliefs. Again, my inalienable right.
As for religion not being a factor in government, you are WOEFULLY IGNORANT of the writings of many of the Founding Fathers who SPECIFICALLY cited that a moral populace was essential to good governence. And they were pretty specific that a moral populace required a faith and belief in a creator God.
And a moral populace requires a religion, or a semblemce thereof. Atheism is amoral. Which is why atheists, along with people who give lip-service to their belief in God or a religion, generally tend to be reprobates.
Once more - and I'm serious about this - how in God's name did you get through law school without this fundemental education on the underpinnings of the very law you practice? This is like me being a programmer, and not understanding how a microprocessor works...
A moral person - a truly moral person - will not vote for an immoral scumbag willingly. In fact this point is reiterated by Marx (who pulled it from someone else) back in the 1850s(?) where he points out that even back then, Americans believe that they only vote for someone who is religious (I'm paraphrasing).
So, your assertion that religion has nothing to do with government, or religion is not supposed to be a factor in government is plain, flat-out wrong.
rfenst wrote:
Yes, we can say whatever we want to each other concerning religious beliefs within a wide set of boundaries, but I believe there is a social limit/line that common sense often dictates not crossing over. I also don't like it when the religious expression is communicated as or has become a message of hate as opposed to disagreement. This ahas more to do with Freedom of Speech than Freedom of Religion, however. Certainly, it is reasonable that there can be certain time and place restrictions placed on us and others from time to time. That, to me, is incredibly important if not the "lynch-pin", if you will, that makes it all work pretty darn well for us.
First of all, whose "society?"
Hate is a vaid expression. You can hate injustice. You can hate evil. Hate itself is not a bad thing.
Lots of people hate war. So you're saying that we should now limit the speech of anti-war protestors?
The Founding Fathers hated tyrrany. A majority of them also has a real hatred of clergy. And they openly wrote about it. According to you, their speech should be abridged.
Or maybe you should take your objections up with the likes of Ed Schultz (who says all manner of inflammatory things), Rachel Maddow (whose "reporting" has put out knowingly false information), and Alex Baldwin (who called for the brutal murder of Henry Hyde). You want to talk about sheer, unadulterated hate speech? These people have it by the truckload.
Where were you on the abridgement of their free speech rights?
rfenst wrote:
Sorry to hear that you are scared when lawyers perceive things differently than some others. it is not because they are lawyers. It is because they simply have a different opinion. But, what I think really scares you is that myself and others don't walk lock-step with you on certain points of view that you hold. We are all probably like that in one way or another and at different times and on different issues. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion!
Ummm...no. What scares me is the fact that people who practice law who a) don't seem to have a full grasp of the foundations of our inalienable human rights, b) use specious justifications to abridge said rights, and c) are off in the ethaer when it comes to religion in government.
There is nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says that you have a freedom from religion. There is nowhere in said documents that there has to be a seperation of religion and government, or that religion is "private." What it does say is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. Period. And if you bother ro read the writings of the Founding Fathers on this matter, you'd know EXACTLY why this is.
rfenst wrote:
As to to "innocent until proven guilty", I agree that it applies to court. But, it really goes beyond that legally in non-court settings. but, it is also part of our "social fabric"- a way of thinking, if you will that normally permeates American society as a belief-system.
Again, I don't know what "society" you're talking about. There is still a lot of noteriety around Lizzy Borden after she was acquitted from murdering her father and step-mother with an axe. If this "innocent until proven guilty" thing was so seeped in the fabric of our "society," old Lizzy would have been a minor footnote in some local town's folklore, and not a major historical figure.
You have a very idealized concept of "society" that really doesn't live up to the facts.
rfenst wrote:
Look, I too have some major problems with the Muslim-American community as a whole too. I believe that some of what they do/have done is abhorrent and unlawful. I find myself wondering about segments of that community too- believe me. But, I also know that there are plenty of Muslim-Americans who share the same concerns and wish things were different and that their communities would take a stand, but haven't to my satisfaction. On the other hand, i have real-life personal experiences, as I am sure you do too, with Muslim-Americans who I have no concern over whatsoever. And, i am sure you will agree that we all have the same types of other religious groups that do not include the Muslim-American community.
I guess (and again) my real point in this thread is still the same. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, are rights that belong to all of us. When one seems to trump an other, one shouldn't be so (pavlovian) quick to exclaim something is critically wrong. One should slow-down, analyze the situation(s), collect as much information as possible and then draw some conclusions- provided one has the facts to do so, instead of jumping to conclusions and working backwards to try to substantiate ones own personal, predetermined, conclusion. Maybe a more direct way to express myself, without attacking anyone in particular, is this: Some people need to really try to understand that rain-drops, no matter how many there seem to be and no matter how hard they are falling, don't mean the sky is always falling.
So, what you're essentially saying is that you tacidly agree with the pilot in the story, but that's the wrong way to be, correct?
Let me tell you something about stereotypes: they exist because stereotypical people keep them alive. That's because we humans are subject to herd mentalities. You may not like it, but that's just reality. Because most people don't want to stand alone, no matter how insufferable the scumbags that they run with. It is less fearful to be with a group of wolves, than to be alone in the wilderness.
And this is true of the Arab / Muslim community, as well as the Democrat party.
Yes, there may be people in that group who don't like the scumbags. Hell, even over in the Middle East there are probably people who are very vocal for their support of terrorists and terrorist organizations, but privately complain that they're a bunch of scumbags.
But they're "their" scumbags. And being part of the wolf pack means that those wolves won't be attacking them.
Then it becomes a matter of courage; whether it is better to save your life, or lose your soul. And most people don't give a flying rat's a** about their immortal soul until the Grim Reaper has his hand on their shoulder. By then it's typically too late. However, for most of their lives, they were able to keep some of the wolves at bay by being a part of their pack.
Which gets us back to religion, which (if you pick the right one) tells you that you need to stand up for what is right and proper so that you don't have to worry about your immortal soul when death comes a-callin'. Because, they reality of it all is, that we're not wolves - we're supposed to be people.
And a smart person knows that no matter how tame the wolves seem to be, you are not a wolf. You are not one of the pack. You are a human. Thus, you are a potential entree'.
(As a side note, I find it to be an endless source of grim amusement to watch those self-promoting naturalists who end up becoming animal feed because they think they "understand" the behavior of wild animals well enough to "hang" with them a while...in the wild...)
Which brings me back to the pilot, and the reason why it is right for him to fear the wolves...er...Arabs / Muslims.
Reality is not a sitcom where guys who look like Crips on an inner-city subway are misperceived by a sheltered suburbanite kid. Guys who look like Crips, dress like Crips, and talk like Crips are Crips . And they'll leave your sheltered suburbanite corpse in a deserted field somewhere with several rounds firmly buried in your head.
Or if you're a Jew or a Christian, try dating a Muslim girl sometime, just to see what will happen.
Or better yet, go hang out with the Palistinians (sp:?), and talks about making peace with Israel, or even talk about why you're a Jew / Christian / Hindi / Buddist and see where that gets you.
The pilot has a reason for his fears and dislikes. it is most likely reinforced by listing to the blabbering s*men-swallowers who represent CAIR, and their seemingly raging hard-on for terrorist organizations.
And it is his right to express his concern...publically...vocally...
rfenst wrote:
(BTW, nice of you to join us again/some more.)
It is nice to drop in. Unfortunately, I am very busy these days. But is is nice every now and again to get all "pottsian," and get it out of my system...
