Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Foxfyre wrote:

You picked up a post that I deleted after thinking about it for awhile and decided not to rehash all the same stuff again. But again if you would advocate a pro choice only club what would be wrong with Harris advocating a Christian only club. (Not that I interpreted her remarks to be that in any way.)

How about the Constitution (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Do you have another way to interpret Christian good, all else bad as other than advocating a Christian only club? By "club" I am referring to elected officials.

0 Replies

How about the First Amendment, Musquite?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF."

It is clear that Congress is NOT making a law in this case but people who are trying to stifle the free speech rights of Ms. Harris are PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

0 Replies

I am not trying to stifle a thing. I am posting it over and over again in red letters.

0 Replies

Conservatives miss the point - per usual.

Although mz harris has the constitutional right to defend her political position - whatever that may be at any given moment - she also has the right to pander christian righty groups by announcing that any legislation that goes against christian beliefs, is of course 'sinful'.

Lest we forget mz tried and trues involvement with MZM - swearing on a stack of bibles she had no knowledge the funds she received were illegal donations. The U.S Attorney differed with the poor misinformed Harris by stating MZM's Michael Wade admitted the contributions were illegal - mz harris aware she was commiting a mortal sin - or is that a venial sin? - at any rate, the checks he handed mz harris, and in the weeks following the harris's dinner with Wade, former senior Harris staffers claimed that "they initially rejected a defense contractor's $10 million appropriation request last year but reversed course after being instructed by Harris to approve it.

Ain't American christian values grand?

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Stradde has not read All the News that's fit to Print- The New York Times. The story in the Times read( in part)

quote

President Bush and Governor Bush had indicated they were warming to Ms. Harris's candidacy as no alternatives emerged. But that changed in February after the military contractor who pleaded guilty to bribing former Representative Randy Cunningham of California, Michael Wade, said he had made illegal campaign donations to Ms. Harris's 2004 re-election campaign.

Ms. Harris has said she had no idea the contributions were illegal, and she has not been accused of wrongdoing. But it has added to a host of woes that have plagued her campaign, including staff turnover and financial problems.

THE KEY SENTENCE IS --SHE HAS NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING!!!

0 Replies

Harris Clarifies Comments on Religion (FoxNews)

"The comments reflected"her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values,"the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust."....

"State GOP leaders _ including Gov. Jeb Bush _ don't think she can win against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November. Fundraising has lagged, frustrated campaign workers have defected in droves and the issues have been overshadowed by news of her dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions."

0 Replies

Ms. Harris has said she had no idea the contributions were illegal, and she has not been accused of wrongdoing. But it has added to a host of woes that have plagued her campaign, including staff turnover and financial problems.

THE KEY SENTENCE IS --SHE HAS NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING!!!

0 Replies

"President Bush and Governor Bush had indicated they were warming to Ms. Harris's candidacy as no alternatives emerged. But that changed in February after the military contractor who pleaded guilty to bribing former Representative Randy Cunningham of California, Michael Wade, said he had made illegal campaign donations to Ms. Harris's 2004 re-election campaign.

Ms. Harris has said she had no idea the contributions were illegal, and she has not been accused of wrongdoing. But it has added to a host of woes that have plagued her campaign, including staff turnover and financial problems.

THE KEY SENTENCE IS --SHE HAS NOT BEEN ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING!!!"

Apparently, the administration differs with you, and the 'news fit to print'.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

quote
Apparently, the administration differs with you, and the 'news fit to print'.
end of quote

Really? and your evidence is ?

0 Replies

"President Bush and Governor Bush had indicated they were warming to Ms. Harris's candidacy as no alternatives emerged. But that changed in February after the military contractor who pleaded guilty to bribing former Representative Randy Cunningham of California, Michael Wade, said he had made illegal campaign donations to Ms. Harris's 2004 re-election campaign. "

0 Replies

I read nothing in that paragraph that says that Ms. Harris has been

ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING!

0 Replies

Quote:

Ain't American christian values grand?

Yes, they are and too bad, you're blind to this fact.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You picked up a post that I deleted after thinking about it for awhile and decided not to rehash all the same stuff again. But again if you would advocate a pro choice only club what would be wrong with Harris advocating a Christian only club. (Not that I interpreted her remarks to be that in any way.)

How about the Constitution (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Do you have another way to interpret Christian good, all else bad as other than advocating a Christian only club? By "club" I am referring to elected officials.

You must have missed my several posts where I used Article VI to defend Katherine Harris's right to prefer Christians to non-Christians as political candidates.

She has no right to require you to profess or not profess any particular religious belief nor do you have any right to require her to profess or not profess any particular religious belief in order to be eligible to be elected to public office. There shall be no religious test applies equally to all and cuts both ways.

And you both have the right to want and encourage and vote for a candidate that defends values that you hold important.

So again, if you are the candidate and you get up and say that "We need to elect pro-choice candidates" or "We need to elect Democrats" or "We need to elect environmentalists" or "We need to elect African Americans" or "We need to elect women" or "We need to elect accordian players" for whatever reason, this is okay. . . .but. . .

. . .to say "We need to elect Christians" is not okay?

To say that she cannot want that or say that does not violate the First Amendment how?

When you advocate electing pro-choice candidates to protect women's rights, are you saying that pro-life candidates should be barred from running for office? If not, then how can you interpret her preference for Christian candidates to protect Christian virtue as meaning that non-Christians should be barred from running for office?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Quote:
Ain't American christian values grand?

Yes, they are and too bad, you're blind to this fact.

Actually miller, the person you are quoting and speaking to is a practicing Catholic.

Hi stradee. Nice to see you again.

0 Replies

And Blatham I hope you didn't miss my apology to you for overreacting. I still think you're all wet, but I did accuse you of promoting something that you did not. And I will take that back.

0 Replies

Harris can say anything she wants. We encourage her to do so (do we ever!)

The right or liberty to speak one's beliefs is, doh, a quite different matter from the content of the belief.

Are all beliefs equally worthy? A candidate named Beevis says "I believe that we should NOT vote for black people because that is to promote non-white values. Hang tight, vote white."

Does Beevis have the right to say/think that? Sure. Ought that right to be protected? Sure.

So are you folks figuring that because Beevis believes what he is saying, the rest of the community should refrain from criticizing his belief/statements? Are beliefs sacred in some manner which places them outside of that which can be criticized?

If I was to respond to Beevis in some public forum and describe his ideas as dim-witted or illogical or that they represent a violation of notions of equality fundamental to American democratic traditions, would I be posing a threat to his freedom of speech?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Blatham I hope you didn't miss my apology to you for overreacting. I still think you're all wet, but I did accuse you of promoting something that you did not. And I will take that back.

Thank you kindly.

0 Replies

Nat Hentoff (liberal, but mostly fair) doesn't think the ACLU has a clear understanding of the First Amendment. He presents a compelling argument as to why they (and people in general) should educate themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-27-god-talk_x.htm

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Harris can say anything she wants. We encourage her to do so (do we ever!)

The right or liberty to speak one's beliefs is, doh, a quite different matter from the content of the belief.

Are all beliefs equally worthy? A candidate named Beevis says "I believe that we should NOT vote for black people because that is to promote non-white values. Hang tight, vote white."

Does Beevis have the right to say/think that? Sure. Ought that right to be protected? Sure.

So are you folks figuring that because Beevis believes what he is saying, the rest of the community should refrain from criticizing his belief/statements? Are beliefs sacred in some manner which places them outside of that which can be criticized?

If I was to respond to Beevis in some public forum and describe his ideas as dim-witted or illogical or that they represent a violation of notions of equality fundamental to American democratic traditions, would I be posing a threat to his freedom of speech?

I have no problem with you criticizing what she says or how she says it. I very much think we have to choose candidates based on the values and principles and policies they stand for and these are fair game for discussion and debate.

I had problems with you saying that she was mentally unstable because she held a particular point of view related to her religious faith. And while you have the right to hold and state that opinion, I have the right to hold and state an opinion that such smacks of prejudice against people of faith and holds people of faith to a different standard than you hold everybody else. I disagreed and still disagree that her point of view in any way disqualifies her or makes her unsuitable to run for public office.
I thought you grossly distorted what she was actually saying.

She may be entirely unsuitable for public office and the wise course very well may be to encourage people to vote for somebody else.

But her opinion that Christians make superior elected officials is no more sinister than your opinion that Democrats, liberals, and/or environmentalists make superior elected officials.

0 Replies

Hentoff is all over the map in his opinions. That's probably a good thing. But he forwards opinions which not one of us here would share in totality. Here he is on Shiavo...

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html

I have no disagreement with him on people educating themselves on these matters, to the degree that they can manage it. That's a REALLY good idea. And one should not accept an ACLU legal or philosophical position merely because one has found them dependable in the past. Or vice versa, obviously.

What Hentoff glosses over too easily is that these issues aren't simple unless we take some absolutist position (which he does on free speech, for example).

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know