New Election 2008 thread

[Good Old Neon]

Maybe good government policies are supported by research, but how many government policies are actually good? I think throwing together some arbitrary laws is a pretty accurate description of how the government works.

 

Well, tomorrow (I

[Good Old Neon]

You're generalizations are totally true and not the least bit condescending.

 

Generalizations, true - as I stated in my opening remark. Condescending, I don

[caliber66]

Condescending, I don

[sweetheart-mine]

It would be a lot easier for someone to step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them if there wasn't so much red tape and headache when it comes to adoption.

 

I have a friend who is trying to adopt and has to seek an international adoption because domestic adoptions are too hard and they're too expensive. She's been on a waiting list for a couple of years for a baby and has yet to get a call.

 

And I would vote to fund their care.

agreed, very true. the adoption process is a nightmare and needs ten thousand fixes. one of its main problems is that it's related to

overpopulation and so becomes another messy issue that few want to deal with.

 

that you would vote to fund their care is admirable.

 

i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would

help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided

when they got married that they wanted to have (give birth to) 8 children, and so far they're up to 5. it would be funny if it weren't so alarming! i mean,

who's going to pay for the parents' psychiatric hospital stays when they go crazy? a doctor's salary goes only so far!

[bleedorange]

Well, tomorrow (I

[ikol]

Well, tomorrow (I

[EL the Famous]

what?? people can think or say anything they want, right? i agree with that. no one has to like it, from any perspective, and anyone can argue about it. is that bullshit?

 

it's when people believe they have the moral high ground and *should be able to prevent others from going their own way* that there's a real problem with basic respect.

 

p.s. it's hard to believe that religious folks and right-wingers are innocents suffering from demonization via the label "evil." in my humble experience, that's a favorite word of *some* religious folks and right-wingers, and they don't hold back in using it to describe those who don't live and breathe their beliefs.

 

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

[Good Old Neon]

Why is it that a belief that some or even many government programs are unnecessary or bloated or inefficient turns into a belief in anarchism for you? I don't think anyone was even remotely close to making that claim.

 

I was being facetious - in theory, I agree with a tidier, streamlined government. But, given the amazing complexity of our society, and the effort required to keep it running, I can also understand how things get a bit bloated.

[uncle wilco]

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

 

great response EL.

[mfwahl]

Here

[Good Old Neon]

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

 

This board makes it apparent that even relatively like-minded folks can be balkanized and fractured when talk turns to religion. Given the current political religious climate, the introduction of prayer in school, strikes me, as a recipe for unneeded conflict and divisiveness.

 

Now, as the atheist and philosopher Daniel Dennett has stated, a case could be made for teaching the history of religion in school, free of all dogma.

 

From TED.com -

 

Dennett regards religion as a natural -- rather than supernatural -- phenomenon, and urges schools to break the taboo against empirical examination of religion. He argues that religion

[Good Old Neon]

Which season of Lost are you referring to? Just joking but this would make a great reality show.

 

 

Too funny

[bleedorange]

This board makes it apparent that even relatively like-minded folks can be balkanized and fractured when talk turns to religion. Given the current political religious climate, the introduction of prayer in school, strikes me, as a recipe for unneeded conflict and divisiveness.

 

 

I've always found prayer in school to be one of those unnecessary issues, too. It serves absolutely no purpose.

 

When I was in high school, they instituted a "nonreligious" moment of silence for every morning (or maybe it was every Monday, I don't remember). I had football first period and we had to actually stop practice and turn and face the school for the 30-second silence. It was ridiculous. People should pray on their own time.

[EL the Famous]

i don't know if i really mean structured periods of time for prayer, more so the ability for a child to do so when the moment allows...not just christian kids either, but those of any other faith where it's a part of their daily life.

 

i guess i'm also a little uneasy w/ earlier bagging on folks actively protesting gay-marriage w/ suggestions they should just ignore it because it doesn't really infringe upon their lives...but, a kid wanting to express/practice his religious beliefs in a school setting can't be ignored as well. we've had this dicsussion before and it troubles me a little...the sheer acknowledgement of prayer, holidays, nationality, etc. is enough to make some people claim their rights are being infringed upon, even when nobody is suggesting they be forced to participate and/or believe the same ideology.

 

prayer in school may be considered by some as an unnecessary issue that serves absolutely no purpose. i'd agree...but in the context that it should be allowed in the strucutre of people being able to participate or not, on their own accord. somebody praying in school, the office and even a (gasp) governmental building doesn't bother me a bit...the sheer act of prayer does not dictate an influence on policy.

[JUDE]

i don't know if i really mean structured periods of time for prayer, more so the ability for a child to do so when the moment allows...not just christian kids either, but those of any other faith where it's a part of their daily life.

 

i guess i'm also a little uneasy w/ earlier bagging on folks actively protesting gay-marriage w/ suggestions they should just ignore it because it doesn't really infringe upon their lives...but, a kid wanting to express/practice his religious beliefs in a school setting can't be ignored as well. we've had this dicsussion before and it troubles me a little...the sheer acknowledgement of prayer, holidays, nationality, etc. is enough to make some people claim their rights are being infringed upon, even when nobody is suggesting they be forced to participate and/or believe the same ideology.

 

prayer in school may be considered by some as an unnecessary issue that serves absolutely no purpose. i'd agree...but in the context that it should be allowed in the strucutre of people being able to participate or not, on their own accord. somebody praying in school, the office and even a (gasp) governmental building doesn't bother me a bit...the sheer act of prayer does not dictate an influence on policy.

 

Zip it Falwell.

[sweetheart-mine]

here's the thing, kind of founded by your 'p.s.'...maybe it's just me and maybe it's just on here, but i always get this attitude that 'religious folks and right-wingers' have the market cornered on claiming said high ground and *preventing others from going their own way*. i'm not saying all 'religious folks and right-wingers' are innocents, but i will say there is plenty of 'demonization' happening all the way around. you can argue who 'demonizes' more than the other guy, but my point is...'demonizing' someone else because they 'demonized' first and/or more is on par w/ the argument 'but mom, he hit me first!'

 

what is your stance on prayer in school and/or the recent trend of banning the recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths? to qualify, i'm okay w/ certain aspects of the seperation of church and state...for example, nobody should be forced to participate in any sort of prayer, holiday celebration or even say the pledge of allegiance. what i don't get, is why these things have to be removed completely versus a choice being given to particpate or not?

re: your first paragraph, i haven't been here very long, so maybe more of that demonization comes from the left here, i don't know. the few other boards i've been on for an extended time were weighted the other way, and the extreme bullying and accusations of "traitor!" "sinner!" and "you don't love america!" were frequent (daily) and, i have to say, really off the wall. like some others, i ended up slinking off, bloodied and in bits, which of course was my choice; it was just very nasty, to the point of stupidity, and i haven't noticed that here. maybe it's here and i haven't come across it yet. do you ever read the comments sections of news articles or blogs? so far (at least this year), my honest general assessment is that it's the comments from the right (and sometimes the religious) that tend to be more bullying and even hysterical. even when one of their targets strikes back, it has seemed almost comically benign in comparison. that's generalizing but it's what i've noticed, in general.

 

in "real life," my experience has been similar. i don't try to tell people not to go to church or mock them for going, but i've had too many lectures to count that castigate and try to shame me for not going myself (doesn't work). war protest is another example. i don't see peaceful protesters throwing rocks at people who support war -- but i've seen the rocks fly the other way.

 

re: your second paragraph, i'm not for prayer in school, unless it's silent prayer, because otherwise it usually forces people of a different religion (or no religion) to participate in something that goes against their own beliefs and has nothing to do with education. but i agree with you completely on the banning of recognition of certain holidays that may have ties to certain faiths. that's going way too far, and is downright silly. so long as no one is barred from celebrating one's own faith or forced to participate in another's, there ought to be no problem with any of it. i'm an agnostic (i.e., believe that just about anything is possible), but i'd like to say to everyone, celebrate your holidays to your heart's content and don't take any foolish crap for doing so!

[Good Old Neon]

i don't know if i really mean structured periods of time for prayer, more so the ability for a child to do so when the moment allows...not just christian kids either, but those of any other faith where it's a part of their daily life.

 

i guess i'm also a little uneasy w/ earlier bagging on folks actively protesting gay-marriage w/ suggestions they should just ignore it because it doesn't really infringe upon their lives...but, a kid wanting to express/practice his religious beliefs in a school setting can't be ignored as well. we've had this dicsussion before and it troubles me a little...the sheer acknowledgement of prayer, holidays, nationality, etc. is enough to make some people claim their rights are being infringed upon, even when nobody is suggesting they be forced to participate and/or believe the same ideology.

 

prayer in school may be considered by some as an unnecessary issue that serves absolutely no purpose. i'd agree...but in the context that it should be allowed in the strucutre of people being able to participate or not, on their own accord. somebody praying in school, the office and even a (gasp) governmental building doesn't bother me a bit...the sheer act of prayer does not dictate an influence on policy.

 

Because the separation of church and state extends to public schools?

[austrya]

i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would

help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided

when they got married that they wanted to have (give birth to) 8 children, and so far they're up to 5. it would be funny if it weren't so alarming! i mean,

who's going to pay for the parents' psychiatric hospital stays when they go crazy? a doctor's salary goes only so far!

 

So how many kids are too many? Why is a big family such a bad thing?

 

 

Plus, just because you wouldn't be able to handle 8 kids, doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't.

[MrRain422]

I don't care if a kid wants to pray on his own at his desk in school or whatever. I don't think that that's ever really been an issue in the public debate either (though I acknowledge I could be wrong about that). I do however take strong issue with anything organized by teachers, coaches, principles, etc., even if it is non-denominational.

[Guest Jules]

So how many kids are too many? Why is a big family such a bad thing?

 

 

Plus, just because you wouldn't be able to handle 8 kids, doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't.

yeah, I don't get why this is alarming either. More power to them.

[EL the Famous]

so far (at least this year), my honest general assessment is that it's the comments from the right (and sometimes the religious) that tend to be more bullying and even hysterical.

 

i think leaning too far one way or the other can desensitize you to seeing it happen from whatever 'side' you're on. meaning, you are more apt to pay less attention that someone militantly esconsing something you agree with than something you don't. as i've gone from a doe-eyed uber left-wing college kid to a more cautious centrist father of two, i see both sides having the potential to be completely capable of a total lack of civil discourse and respect.

 

the phrase 'holier than thou' doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive to those who believe in anything holy. 'i'm better than you' may be a better statement. that's all i'm saying. whenver i get involved in these debates...it's really more grounded in how things are being said versus what is being said.

 

Because the separation of church and state extends to public schools?

 

the problem comes in w/ everybody's interpreation/opinion on what purpose separation of church and state is supposed to provide. again, does individual practice that is in no way mandatory in a public school influence and/or affect a greater public policy? it's like you're saying 'because it's there' versus really determining what it means or what purpose it's supposed to serve...we have the right to bear arms too, should everybody be allowed to arm themselves to the hilt? i don't think so. current governmental verbeage doesn't recognize marriage as anything other than a man or women. should we just lay down and not try to have it changed?

 

just seems like we, dpending on your personal beliefs, can be awfully selective when it comes to how we rally against or run to certain policies...

[sweetheart-mine]

So how many kids are too many? Why is a big family such a bad thing?

 

 

Plus, just because you wouldn't be able to handle 8 kids, doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't.

how many kids are too many? i have no idea. do you know how many people the planet can handle? do you ever think about it?

there's absolutely nothing wrong with one big family. but a billion or three big families presents a lot of problems the world over.

 

i've been referring to overpopulation. it has nothing to do with whether i could handle 8 kids, or none. my niece handles hers

just fine; still has nothing to with it.

[EL the Famous]

I do however take strong issue with anything organized by teachers, coaches, principles, etc., even if it is non-denominational.

 

including holidays? and, why even when it's non-denominational? are your replacing mandatory w/ organized? not on the attack, i'm just really interested.

[JUDE]

Because the separation of church and state extends to public schools?

 

I may be confused but being somewhat familiar with the constitution and having read the Federalist Papers numerous times, I don't recall the "seperation of church and state" section. I've seen something about the government shall not legislate a state relegion, i.e. the Church of England being the official religion of well, England.

[bobbob1313]

You know, a case could be made that your continued defense of religion - something you