What is your political stance?

Post Reply New Topic

Your intolerance and ignorance are profound. You purposefully ignore the meanings of the amendments of the constitution. The courts removing ten commandments from public property, removing Christmas displays from public property, and forbidding prayer at public events are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Your argument about the loopholes of publicly funded universities being OK to violate the first amendment is disingenuous. The court case is about anti-Christians crashing a prayer group with the express purpose of destroying it. The court upheld that anti-christian protesters are allowed to destroy the christian group if they get enough votes.

The courts are making more and more laws ensuring christian religion is not practiced in public. Stating that religious groups must change their venue and hide their religion from public view is prohibiting free exercise. If you still cannot understand the "cliche" you need to take a civics class.The constitution and its amendments are the documents the US is founded on. I guess you don't support those ideas.

You have left out several reasonable alternatives in you poll questions.

You should have included "none of the above" at the very least.

ruveyn

Incorrect. The courts have interpreted those actions as being state support of religion, whereas the Constitution demands that the state be completely neutral in regard to religion. If court were removing ten commandments or Christmas displays from private property, then we would have an outrage. But public property is secular. They are not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, they are merely preventing you from involving the government in attempts to promote your particular religion.

Let me put it to you a different way: how about if a courthouse played the adhan (Muslim call to prayer) over loudspeakers each day? If the courts struck this down as unconstitutional, would you object?


No. The court case did not uphold that. The policy at that university may be stupid and pointless, but it does not violate anyone's first amendment rights.


I maintain that you have no idea what that cliché is even supposed to mean. Actually, I challenge whether it has any significant meaning at all; I suspect that it is mostly just a slogan.

I support the Constitution and its amendments. I question whether you really do as well.

It does have the kind of ring that'd fit in line with that whole appeal to the "moral majority" that went on in the 80s.

Homosexuality- If it is between two consenting adults, I'm perfectly fine with it.
Abortion- Undecided.
Illegal immigration- If you don't have the papers, go back home.
Gun control- We should at least have someone's mental health profile looked into before we give them a gun. Otherwise, the blood would be on our hands.
I wouldn't know what to call myself politically. Right-libertarian?

Well, the real issue here is that there is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause for awhile had a very loose interpretation that caused the latter to be banned. The issue is that that loose interpretation of the establishment clause has slowly been beaten back, which actually has made it more allowable to have prayer and religious symbolism at public events.


No, it really isn't. The fact of the matter is that the University doesn't directly violate the 1st Amendment at all. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law". The issue is that in deciding these questions, what you really end up using is the doctrine of selective incorporation, in which judges incorporate certain national perspectives into the states, and this is done in a somewhat ad hoc manner.

The issue is that even by that doctrine, there is no reason to say that a university cannot set its own policies so long as they don't attempt to favor a group. As it stands, the University's policies are just crappy, but it doesn't have to allow religious groups to organize as clubs in the university at all, so it isn't being prejudiced and it isn't violating any Amendment. I mean, you really don't seem to know the issues at stake, but I will tell you that the University's policies do not violate the establishment clause or the exercise clause, as the free-exercise of religion doesn't mean the right to have a club at universities, and it certainly doesn't mean having the right to have rules at universities that are compatible with these clubs.


Actually, they aren't. They used to, then they backpedaled a bit. I am willing to attempt to cite a few Supreme Court cases to justify that claim, but really, the Supreme Court has also justified the use of a cross by the KKK in a public display after they made the "wall of separation judgment", which was the height of the more liberal interpretation of the Establishment clause.

As it stands though, I doubt that the court will ever go back to being so liberal on exercise that it does allow for ten commandments everywhere.

Progressive liberal am I.

I voted conservative but some political spectrums I took classify me as an authoritarian.

As has already been said it means opposition to the EU. Euroscepticism is a force across the European Union but it's generally strongest in places like the UK, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Denmark. There are two main shades of euroscepticism - reformist euroscepticism (where people or political parties believe that the EU can be reformed in various ways to make it more accountable to the people) and withdrawalist euroscepticism (those who have no interest in reforming it and just want to leave). Politically, eurosceptic parties fall right across the political spectrum from the far-right nationalists (BNP, FPÖ and Front National) to right-wing national conservatives (UKIP, PVV, DUP, DF), the centre-right (British Conservatives, ODS, PiS) and then from there onto the socialist left (Vänsterpartiet, Socialistisk Folkeparti, elements of the Green Party of England and Wales). The eurosceptics are mainly concentrated in the ECR and EFD groups with some in the Non-Inscrits group though no-one really wants to sit there as it's made up of fascists with one or two exceptions.

UKIP is probably the most serious eurosceptic party as I have said. We do very well in the European elections (we're the second biggest British political party after the Tories in the EU parliament) but not well at general elections (we failed to win any seats at all last time; I think this is very unfair - Northern Ireland's DUP got half the number of votes we did and got eight seats!).

Last edited by Tequila on 30 Jul 2010, 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

How about classical liberal?

I am more willing to call myself right-libertarian than classical liberal, interestingly enough.

None of the above

ruveyn

I'm a leftist radical of the socialist stripe, and a pure libertarian.

I'm a small-government left-libertarian registered democrat who supports ending the war on drugs and providing amnesty to otherwise law-abing illegal immigrants, and opposes government-sponsored health care, exorbitant taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy foods, and absolutely any attempt to legislate lifestyle. And as usual, I find myself with no good option to vote for.

That is not a decent choice to which an honest decent person can subscribe with a whole heart. You are doomed to either skipping on elections or voting for the lesser of evils (according to you reckoning of evil).

Someone once said that a decent person should not see laws and sausages being created.

ruveyn

Which is why sausage factories should be full of pornography. Perhaps Congress as well.