<p>
</p>
<p>Straw man if I ever saw one.</p>
<p>Guess they don’t teach fallacies at ChicagoU…</p>
<p>XD</p>
<p>Respectfully, HSisOverrated, I think the miscommunication is about Christian VALUES vs Christian DOGMA. I am a Ron Paul supporter too, and I adore his humble, ‘Christian’ (in the sense of kindness, LOVE, PEACE, etc.) outlook. However, I am spiritual but not religious, and I don’t believe in the bible as authority (though I do think there is a lot of great stuff in it, at least the words of Jesus). The comment about Giuliani getting stoned was in reference to the biblical instructions to stone adulterers (which Jesus rebuked, btw). The old testament is full of such things, like instructions to the Israelites to invade other tribes and leave no survivors, instructions for blood sacrifice, etc. I do not intend this as offensive, but I personally reject the old testament entirely, because it does not seem to reflect the values that I believe God has (love, mercy, etc.). A lot of the issues with the bible have to do with concerns about people making policies based on old testament history. If everyone was in agreement about just following the Golden Rule, there probably wouldn’t be an issue.</p>
<p>I realize that Christians have explanations and interpretations of these seeming contradictions, but I hope you can understand how frightening the idea of following the bible as an authority is to non-Christians is. Already, I have heard SOME Christians justify the Iraq war by citing violent old testament passages! And we all know about the ‘Christian’ pastors who think all gays should be killed.</p>
<p>If the entire bible were to be taken literally, this would be a scary place indeed. And who gets to decide which passages to take literally and which to interpret symbolically? </p>
<p>I personally think that Ron Paul exudes true Christian values more than any other candidate, in the sense of PRINCIPLES of honesty, PEACE, etc. but I also know that he would NEVER impose religious dogma on the entire country. He would NEVER base his presidential decisions on the bible.</p>
<p>Therefore, Christians and non-Christians alike can feel comfortable with him as president. And we are. My local group has a very diverse assortment of people.</p>
<p>And that is the difference between him and huckabee. It’s quite a big difference.</p>
<p>In addition, huckabee seems to be a warmonger like bush. Again, a very big difference.</p>
<p>I think Christians have a lot of reasons to like Ron Paul. He exudes the qualities they value, including being unapologetically pro-life and extending that to include ALL humans, including his intention to reduce lives lost (on both sides) by unnecessary and unjust war.</p>
<p>My point is that we can have the basic Christian values of goodness without the Christian dogma being imposed on non-Christians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, being a Jesus Freak myself (except I do not care who else decides not to be one), I think this does not accurately describe Evangelicals. They seem to think there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State (and, in fact, there isn’t), but they do not wish to force anyone to attend church. They just want the church to have the right to do whatever it wishes, since the Constitution declares </p>
<p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…</p>
<p>Under this text, Congress shall make no law that “respects” (i.e. compliments, supports, honors) any religious establishment, but neither shall Congress make a law that hinders religious expression. Evangelicals might say that Congress has no Constitutional authority to keep religious school administrators from preaching to students, for example. If local school and community consensus will support Muslim prayer, or Christian, or Catholic, or Mormon, or Bahai, or whatever, these religious establishments have Constitutional freedom to exercise themselves without any legal threat from Congress. </p>
<p>I see the position, and looking at the text honestly, I think Evangelicals are correct in their view. The Founding Fathers may have had all sorts of beliefs that disagree with the Evangelicals, but the text – the law itself – supports the Evangelical view. The only way I see around this is to take the philosophy that the Constitution is elastic, and needs to be interpreted in varying ways depending on the needs of society. I guess I can accept this, but only because currently the Constitution is being bent toward my views. I fear the same elasticity can one day turn against me.</p>
<p>Personally, I’d like Evangelicals never to have power, mostly because their sort has not historically been kind to people like me. I rather like things as they are. Still, I must admit to having more than a twinge of discomfort when I see the Constitution claiming Congress should not hinder free exercise of religion, while seeing Congress charging taxes to churches simply because they speak out on political candidates. I think a clear and obvious legal freedom of religious exercise is being violated here, due to a doctrine of Separation of Church and State that seems not at all as obvious.</p>
<p>I know the arguments on both sides here. And I take the view against Evangelicals. But I have a hard time doing it, and always have since I first encountered the issue. Self-preservation causes me to stand against these people, but integrity still makes me feel awful for doing so.</p>
<p>What straw man? What are you talking about? “Straw man” means that you pretend your opponents are making a weak argument they didn’t actually make. </p>
<p>[Straw</a> man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]Straw”>Straw man - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Huckabee is the subject of this argument, not an opponent, so my re-phrasing of his words has nothing to do with setting up a straw man. I’m pointing out that his speaking style carries the advantage of placing the issues front and center.</p>
<p>And I’ve never gone to U of Chicago, so credit for my rhetorical failings has to be placed elsewhere.</p>
<p>^^^Hanna here is not agreeing with Huckabee. She seems quite opposed to him (as am I). What she appears to respect is his willingness to throw his positions in the fray just as clearly as everyone else, with no dishonor and stealth, so that we can vote on what he actually proposes, instead of our voting on mushiness or even outright lies. Huckabee is working within the system, calling for America to follow the established procedures for changing the Constitution. If America were to vote for his desired changes, all would be quite valid.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier I think you are so right. It is the filp-flop and keep it vague sound bite world of politics that is such a threat and a bore.</p>
<p>I remember Barry Goldwater’s campaign. At least you knew what he stood for so your vote had some basis.</p>
<p>Thanks for explaining better than I did, Dross. 07Dad, Barry Goldwater is a great example of the kind of opponent you can respect even as he terrifies you. He honestly believed in all of his positions, and he said so. We need more of that from our politicians, then and now. Let’s put the gloves on, shake hands, and fight a real fight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting statement, given that international reports have concluded that with respect to the civil liberties related to a free democracy, Canada is currently ahead of America (Patriot act and all that).</p>
<p>You only need to read posts# 33, 34 and 37 (thanks to garland, lealdragon and zoosermom) to see the kind of political candor I (and seemingly Hanna) yearn for.</p>
<p>Leaders should disclose a consciousness of the real world issues behind their positions. And, as the referenced posts exemplify, a little soul searching and empathy wouldn’t hurt.</p>
<p>On the Amendment subject, it is very difficult to mount the required support for an amendment without reaching out to representatives of people with various frames of reference. I think that was by design. If we are going to amend the “social compact” after the fact there needs to be a strong consensus. BUT why the requisite number of states agree to the Amendment is not relevant under this time tested procedure. And, to my way of thinking it should not be relevant.</p>
<p>You and I are just fellow citizens. Why you and I want something placed in the Constitution that provides the limitations on the collective governance is no ones business.</p>
<p>I recall after the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution failed to get the necessary support, Texas (which had passed the ERA) started implementing may pro-ERA reforms. So, even the unsuccessful process of Amendment may result in changes at the state level. That is also part of the dual federalism design.</p>
<p>OK, civics class is dismissed.</p>
<p>Let me go on record:</p>
<p>If Huckabee or any other republican (with the possible exception of McCain) wins the election, I will be looking to find a new country. </p>
<p>I almost gagged when I heard the Huckabee statement. Can you imagine if a Muslim were running and said the same thing about the Constitution and the Koran? Same principle, different religion.</p>
<p>I don’t want freedom OF religion, I want freedom FROM religion</p>
<p>"If Huckabee or any other republican (with the possible exception of McCain) wins the election, I will be looking to find a new country. "</p>
<p>I’m on record as loathing, detesting and reviling Hillary Clinton, but I didn’t even find a new state when she was elected, and I’d never leave my country, never.</p>
<p>While I’d love to live in New Zealand, I’m keeping US citizenship, period.</p>
<p>I believe that finding another country that allows for as much freedom and, yes, tolerance of core divergence of beliefs and opinion as the US does is going to be a lot more difficult than one might imagine.</p>
<p>
then, indeed, you are in the wrong country:
</p>
<p>Nothing about enacting laws to protect people from religion, only from congress making laws to establish one. Actually - nothing in there about the executive branch, either.</p>
<p>well, huckabee is into the subservient wifey thing as well…</p>
<p>its pretty clear what the founding fathers wanted, and it WASN"T a religious governemnt, no matter how some want to dissect the words</p>
<p>so are you implying, but your last remark, that the exectutive branch CAN esatblish a religious government/</p>
<p>I’ve implied nothing other than perhaps someone seeking governmental protection from others’ personal religious beliefs could be best served elsewhere. I pasted the relevant amendment and noted that the executive branch is not mentioned. Since the executive branch cannot enact laws without congress, no one in it can enact laws establishing a religious government. But there is truly nothing in the Constitution barring a president from allowing his or her personal religious beliefs to guide the decision-making process, nor is there anything in the Constitution to “protect” people from one who does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sources?</p>
<p>I’m talking about OBVIOUS intrusion. The Patriot Act is in theory very very very very very invasive, but the laws and approach is less noticable. meaning, if u go outside and say %<em>#&(</em>@ Christians/Muslims/Jews/Whitey, you won’t be sandbagged.</p>
<p>Unlike in Canada, where freedom of speech has been manipulated to fit the politically correct government and <em>cough</em> new muslim arrivals. </p>
<p>Netherlands and Britain are getting pretty bad too.</p>
<p>How about this: if you want to talk about “obvious” intrusion (which really means practical intrusion), it’s your responsibility to provide some examples. I am flat out telling you, as someone who has experienced in various ways the intrusions of both systems, that there is, at the moment, more restriction of civil liberties in America than in Canada (lots of it through DHS and the Patriot Act, which in reality more intrusive than you think). It’s possible that I’m wrong, as anecdotes are unreliable (and I’m going based largely on personal experience and consumption of the news), but pending that determination I challenge you to provide whatever sources you’re using to back up your assertion that Canada has less freedoms than America does.</p>
<p>1of42, it is true that most Commonwealth countries have a less absolute right to free speech/freedom of the press than we have in the U.S. The difference isn’t centered on criticism of the government; it’s a matter of much stricter slander and libel laws. Countries that hew to the British tradition also have tighter rules against hate speech than the U.S. Constitution allows. I believe Canada also has tighter restrictions on what reporters can say about criminal cases under investigation, but don’t quote me on that.</p>
<p>Commonwealth law often contains wider libel and slander laws, but this is not particularly pronounced in Canada compared to, for example, Britain - which has long been known for so-called “libel tourism”.</p>
<p>The thing is, for each “well, you have stricter hate speech laws” type difference, I can bring up one of any of the numerous civil rights restrictions that DHS and the Patriot Act have put into place, the higher drinking age, the more prohibitionist stance on drugs, and so forth.</p>
<p>Looking only at speech rights when considering civil liberties is narrow-minded. Though these are important (and the US is good with them, generally), there are many other liberties, many of which the US is not quite as good with.</p>
<p>1of42, I don’t have a dog in this race; I don’t know how you’d really weigh one system against the other, anyway. But you asked what sources might support the idea that we have more freedom in the U.S., and I offered some.</p>