TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Texas Taliban's new and improved platform
Texas Taliban's new and improved platform
What a freak show.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistor...olitics/2610350
they are simply trying to get rid of the image, "Texas - just queers and steers".
Nutthin wrong with that
Re: Texas Taliban's new and improved platform
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ What a freak show. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistor...olitics/2610350 |
| quote: |
Texas Republican delegates on Friday adopted an ultraconservative party platform that attacks a wide range of targets -- from taxes and homosexuality to abortion and the United Nations -- |
fukin'A Texas
now if they can just get rid of all the damn mexicans...j/k
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus they are simply trying to get rid of the image, "Texas - just queers and steers". Nutthin wrong with that |
I stand by my comment that the religious right is a freak show, and I was referring to those people (not all Republicans).
The late Barry Goldwater, for example, is man I greatly respect for his principled stands.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalri...-goldwater.html
| quote: |
Washington Post, 13 July 1994 Job Protection For Gays By Barry Goldwater -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last year, many who opposed lifting the ban on gays in the military gave lip service to the American ideal that employment opportunities should be based on skill and performance. It�s just that the military is different, they said. In civilian life, they�d never condone discrimination. Well, now�s their chance to put up or shut up. A bipartisan coalition in Congress has proposed legislation to protect gays against job discrimination. Congress is waking up to a reality already recognized by a host of Fortune 500 companies, including AT&T, Marriott and General Motors. These businesses have adopted policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation because they realize that their employees are their most important asset. America is now engaged in a battle to reduce the deficit and to compete in a global economy. Job discrimination excludes qualified individuals, lowers workforce productivity and eventually hurts us all. Topping the new world order means attracting the best and creating a workplace environment where everyone can excel. Anything less makes us a second rate nation. It�s not just bad�it�s bad business. But job discrimination against gays and lesbians is real, and it happens every day. Cracker Barrel, a national restaurant chain, adopted a policy of blatant discrimination against employees suspected of being gay. Would anyone tolerate policies prohibiting the hiring of African Americans, Hispanics or women? Today, in corporate suites and factory warehouses, qualified people live in fear of losing their livelihood for reasons that have nothing to do with ability. In urban and rural communities, hatred and fear force good people from productive employment to the public dole�wasting their talents and the taxpayers� money. Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, �if you work hard and play by the rules, you�ll be rewarded� and not with a pink slip just for being gay. It�s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays�or anybody else�is contrary to each of these founding principles. Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don�t hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else. Even the 1992 Republican platform affirms the principle that �bigotry has no place in our society.� I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter�and sexual orientation shouldn�t. Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn�t about granting special rights�it�s about protecting basic rights. It is for this reason that more than 100 mayors and governors, Republicans and Democrats, have signed laws and issued orders protecting gays and lesbians. In fact, nearly half the states have provided some form of protection to gays in employment. But of course many others have not, including my own state of Arizona. It�s not going to be easy getting Congress to provide job protection for gays. I know that firsthand. The right wing will rant and rave that the sky is falling. They�ve said that before�and we�re still here. Constitutional conservatives know that doing the right thing takes guts and foresight, but that�s why we�re elected, to make tough decisions that stand the test of time. My former colleagues have a chance to stand with civil rights leaders, the business community and the 74 percent of Americans who polls show favor protecting gays and lesbians from job discrimination. With their vote they can help strengthen the American work ethic and support the principles of the Constitution. |
Well isn't that special?
HHAHHAHAAAAAAA!!!
[[[smoke]]]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo fukin'A Texas now if they can just get rid of all the damn mexicans...j/k |
This is what the Fundies want to roll back:
"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
1954: The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling, Tudor v. Board of Education against the distribution of Bibles by outside groups like the Gideons.
1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
1962: The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, disallowed a government-composed, nondenominational "Regents" prayer which was recited by students .
1963: In a number of major decisions (Murray v. Curlett; Abington Township School district v. Schempp) mandatory Bible verse recitation was ruled unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state�s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment�s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State�s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City�s ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
I can understand and even sympathize with the Fundies (and Christians in general), and they may feel they are being persecuted.
I think reason probably escapes many of them, but if they were to imagine themselves living in a Fundamentalist Islamic country as a Christian, they would recognize the importance of keeping the two institutions (government and religion) separate.
Even in a public school, everyone has far-reaching religious rights that are protected:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm
| quote: |
Enforcing religious rights: Even though many religious behaviors are protected by the Constitution, they are not necessarily allowed by the teacher, school principal or school board. Sometimes, they have to be fought for. A small percentage of public school teachers and principals have interpreted the constitution incorrectly. Some have: forbidden a student from reading a Bible in the school bus. forbidden a student from praying before a meal in the cafeteria. refused to accept a student history essay on the life of an historical figure because the essay described Jesus. refused to allow a Bible study group to be organized by students, while permitting political, philosophical, science and other special interest groups. Such infringements on a student's religious freedom are clearly unconstitutional, and based on ignorance of the law by the teacher, principal and/or school board. The US Supreme Court has ruled that students' rights do not stop at the school door. Such disputes are usually resolved when the school is informed of student's rights. Many Christian litigation groups are actively involved in such resolutions. The Rutherford Institute 3 is believed to be the largest such organization. They have stated: "Many cases can be solved with a strong and professional letter from an attorney, a legal memorandum from our office, or a phone call from a staff member." Although it is a conservative Christian group, they occasionally take on cases which support the rights of non-Christians. Factors to Consider About School Prayer: This topic generates a great deal more heat than light. A number of points are might be considered concerning prayer and other religious activities in public classrooms: Contrary to generally held belief, prayer is not forbidden in public schools. A student can come early to class, sit quietly, and pray silently. Similarly, with some discipline, a student can pray upon rising, as a family before leaving home, even (if they can concentrate over the noise) in a school bus, in the cafeteria, etc. If students are allowed to organize any type of extra-curricular group, such as a science club or political club, then they are free to organize religious or prayer groups. The federal "equal access" law requires this of all school districts that receive federal funding. They may hold their meetings on school property, advertise their group, etc. to the same extent as non-religious student groups. Students do not leave their constitutional rights at the door of the school: they can wear clothing that promotes a specific religion or denomination; they can discuss the religious aspects of a topic in class, etc. There is a sizable minority of parents (and by implication, children) who follow other than Christian religions or who follow no religion at all. They find a state-sponsored Christian prayer to be deeply offensive, and an attack on their freedom of religion. Many deeply Christian and other religious parents and children who pray regularly regard enforced, state written prayers to be deeply offensive and a violation of fundamental human rights. Some jurisdictions have allowed objecting students to leave the room and thus be excused from reciting a prayer. However, this action subjects the students to harassment by their peers. To require students to recite a Christian prayer implies state recognition of Christianity as a religion of special status in the country. This is interpreted by many that religions other than Christianity are of inferior status. That promotes conflict among faith groups and intolerance towards minority religions. Attempting to decide what prayers should be used can result in inter-denominational conflict among Christians. More conservative groups might ask for prayers which deal with sin, Satan, Hell and the necessity of being saved. Mainstream groups may want to write prayers which emphasize the love of God and responsibilities to one's fellow humans. The freedom for parents and a school system to require children to recite a state-written prayer conflicts with the rights of parents and students who wish freedom from compulsory prayer. Some jurisdictions have reached various compromises that balance the rights and desires of opposing groups: Some schools institute a moment of silence that students can use to pray silently, or meditate, or simply center themselves. Most schools allow any interested students to gather outside the classroom in the school to pray as a group. In Canada, some school systems have a list of prayers drawn from a variety of religions that are found in the state or province. These prayers are read in sequence by a volunteer. Students are not required to recite the words; they can simply remain silent. This approach has a valuable educational component. Students learn a little about many religions. They realize that there are many different religions in the world and that society recognizes that all have worth. |
sounds like a good plan to me...
Dave SZ loses all respect with a double post.
Article referenced is entitled:
Taxes, gays, abortion targeted by state GOP
This has little to do with subsequent posts by him in his subsequent posts.
[[[smoke]]]
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.