1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Mewmew, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Strange Famous

    Strange Famous it depends on who is looking...

    Location:
    Ipswich, UK
    Whats wrong with Sharia law?

    I don't think anyone is proposing to make it the law of the land, but if individuals choose to submit family and business disputes to the judgment of their church, as far as I am concerned they have the right to do so.

    It doesnt effect their rights under the secular law, it is simply a way that some people find better (and cheaper and quicker) to resolve disputes.

    _

    I don't know if its the same in the US, but Sharia Law is used in this way in the UK.

    If you can tolerate Judge Judy making judgments, some local cleric cant be that much worse?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    When people use religion as a means to restrict the rights of others, it has no place in our society.

    I gave an example - some Christians would use the teachings of their faith to restrict the rights of, call it marriage, civil unions, whatever, of gay people to enjoy the legal protections of said arrangements. Muslims would do the same through Sahria Law. Both are unacceptable to me. We currently have a system heavily influenced by Christianity, this influence has been getting smaller. Given that trend, why would anyone want to introduce another avenue of potential intolerance?

    Just because you have issues with Fox News, that does not mean everyone who appears on Fox News lack credibility. If you have issues with the interviewee in the clip I posted, and what she said, be specific. Your issues and complaints with Fox News are not important.
    --- merged: Mar 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM ---
    Why not read what I write and then comment?
    --- merged: Mar 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM ---
    If I suggested that there is something "wrong", please allow me to correct what you think I suggested. I do not want to live in a society that has anything to do with Sharia Law, that is my personal view. If others want to live under Sharia Law that is their business. It is a question of choice. In the US, I want to live under the laws as governed by the US Constitution. I like the US Constitution, I am comfortable with it, I understand it, and though not perfect, the priority is to protect individual rights.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2012
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I see no problem, generally, with any law that does not infringe constitutional rights or accepted international human rights. But that's not the problem here. The problem is in your argumentation. See below.

    I admit to having issues with Fox News generally, but I will accept certain content if it flies. The problem is with what you posted specifically. You posted something based on a premise that's arguably false, meaning that the outcome from Fox New's perspective is either a) ignorant, b) specious, or c) propagandic. If we assume the best of Fox News in this case, then we'll call them ignorant.

    Either way, for the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't make sense to use the clip you posted as a basis for anything except perhaps the problem of misrepresentation, conspiracy theory, and general hysteria about Sharia law that seems to be running rampant in the U.S., thanks, at least in part, to Fox News, or so it seems.
     
  4. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Are you telling me the interviewee is wrong? Did she lie? Did she exaggerate? Or, was her problem appearing on Fox News?

    Are you making your "a)" ,"b)" "c)" arguments against her? Me? Fox News? The only argument of importance here is an argument in response to what she said otherwise it is just a distraction.
     
  5. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The problem is the interviewee appears to have been brought in under a false pretense. I thought this was clear in my first response to it. I thought I wasn't the only one to whom it was clear.

    Against Fox News.

    I'll have to listen to it again, but the interviewee seems to be discussing the wider problems with Sharia law, mostly applicable to certain foreign cultures and most certainly not applicable domestically in the United States. Any connections made domestically were based on the false pretense, rendering them invalid. This is my main objection.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  6. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    This is what you wrote:
    I took your comment to mean that you considered Santorum's theocratic ideal to be less a threat to individual freedoms than the prospect of Sharia Law in the US - which of course it's not - considering the wide support Santorum enjoys for his ideal on a national level vs. the desire for Sharia Law at the community level (a negligible factor in terms of either support or instances where it's requested) I took this as being somewhat in defense of Santorum's positions, but I may have interpreted your comment incorrectly.

    So why don't you appear equally concerned over the Christian threat to your constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms? It's apparent you're more fearful of the mouse in the attic than the tiger in your bed.
    --- merged: Mar 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM ---
    The Christian influence is not getting smaller. It's getting larger and is determined to have it's way. (where have you been?) Its political arm is now married to the right wing conservative movement and it's tentacles, fully entrenched in the Congress , have also found their way into the Supreme Court.

    This might be your problem, Ace. You fail to see the enemy standing in front of you, but as there must be an enemy lurking somewhere, it must be the Muslims.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2012
  7. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    You may find it interesting to know that there seems to be as many questions about religion, abortion, and gay rights in the GOP debates as there are questions about health care.

    I find it interesting. Sad, but interesting.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  8. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    It is also interesting that more than 20 states have laws requiring coverage of contraception in all private insurance plans. Many were enacted with Republican support and/or signed by Republican governors. There was also a federal mandate in 2000 that required employers to cover contraception if they offer health plans that cover preventive care and prescriptions....Bush never challenged it, the Republican majority in Congress never challenged it. Not a peep out of either...no one claimed it was an infringement on religious freedom.

    The only difference is the ACA mandate requires it to be offered w/o a co-pay, in the same manner as other preventive care.

    Now, all of a sudden, because it is part of Obama's plan, it is an attack on religious freedom. It is nothing more than pandering to the radical religious base in an election year.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Pixel

    Pixel Getting Tilted

    Location:
    Missoura
    That's why I say no matter what, none of these clowns are electable.
     
  10. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    And all the candidates have their responses down pat.

    Fortunately, the conversation and questions will be more focused on the real issues during the GE. Or at least I hope they will.
     
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    If this is true, it's disgusting. It is, I suppose, part and parcel of the right's "Obama must fail" strategy, regardless of the damage it does. I guess it's the kind of thing that happens when the quest for power becomes desperate. I can't think of any other reason why the Republican shift to the right seems so marked. The shark was jumped back with the Palin stunt in the last election. Now comes the inevitable disintegration.

    I think it has come to a point where the Republican party must self-destruct before it can be rebuilt. They currently make Eisenhower look like a socialist, at least in their eyes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  12. pan6467

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.


    He (Limbaugh) has tried to apologize.

    http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-apologizes-law-student-insult-230653485.html

    Now I take this apology with a grain of salt. First of all there is this:

    He apologizes ONLY after losing sponsors and having GOP congress members and the candidates reem him and pull money out of his show.

    Secondly, there is this:

    WHEN has calling ANY woman a slut been funny? We learn in elementary school that we no not never call a woman "slut" or "cunt" and expect it to be OK and funny. So, dope fiend, lard ass (sorry, I was looking for a humorous word to describe Limbaugh) thinks calling a lady that he has political differences with a "slut" is supposed to be funny... I see.... Nice apology...."I wanted to be funny in describing her and "slut" was the funniest word I could think of"....ha ha ha....

    Then there is the fact he wants to blame the leftist, Marxist, state run press for blowing it out of proportion.... Hey lard ass, dope head, if someone calls someone YOU see as having her right to speak out taken away and called a slut so millions and millions of listeners can hear ok and not news worthy and YOU would never say anything against the person calling the lady that, then I wonder how many people are able to call you a true friend and would know you have their back.

    BUT the most telling part is:

    Losing money and audience because your own party's candidates condemned what you said, is a great reason to ummmmm I don't know half heartedly apologize and say "well I chose the wrong word in an attempt to be humorous." I didn't expect the lextist stae run Marxist press to try to burn me in effigy because of it. I didn't expect Mitt, Newt, Ron and Rick (aka Larry, Curly Moe and Curly Joe), to run and hide over it, I didn't expect Carbonite and others to pull ads, I didn't expect stations owned by my friend Clear Channel to threaten pulling my show... so ok... "I'm sorry, I was trying to be humorous in calling her a slut." A word we learn in elementary school NO NOT NEVER to call a girl or woman we respect.
    Now I know, I am not the one he needs to apologize to and it is none of my business how Ms. Fluke takes it.​
    But may I say this:​


    So, you don't care what goes on behind bedroom doors, but you are against homosexuality, you want videos of her having sex and you want to know who bought her condoms in Jr. High? Sounds like you want to know a lot there in a supposed apology LARD ASS DOPE FIEND... oh wait LARD ASS DOPE FIEND we established isn't funny. I apologize... maybe you should get the ACLU to save your ass as you did when you were busted for drugs asswipe.
    Can I say "asswipe" is that funny?​
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  13. cynthetiq

    cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    New York City

    View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs


    Umm but it's been funny since the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players.
     
  14. pan6467

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.

    Touche. In response, it was not about a woman who had already had her voice silenced by the GOP, nor was it really funny in any context even back then, and back then they were playing it for laughs, not to truly insult someone that all she wanted was for her voice to be heard. It was in no way a staged event with Limbaugh as it was with Curtain and Ackroyd. Nor was Ackroyd on camera asking "who paid for your birth control in Jr. High" (with the implication this woman who LIMBAUGH never met was having sex in Jr. High, thus implying again she was a teenage ....

    So you can point to this but.... that is seriously stretching the context of my above argument.
     
  15. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Yeah, but when's the last time a right wing radio show host said anything funny? They desperately attempt to employ the delightful comic elements of sarcasm, irony, and satire but for some unknown reason ( I suspect genetics) they only come off sounding mean and spiteful. Poor things, they just don't get it. Fortunately for them, their listeners don't get it either so comments such as Rush made go over like free bullets at a Tea Party convention.

    "Jane, you slut" is beloved and funny as shit.
     
  16. cynthetiq

    cynthetiq Administrator Staff Member Donor

    Location:
    New York City
    I don't believe that Rush, Hannity, or Bill are anything but entertainers. If they were breaking serious journalism they'd be doing such things as real exposes and investigative reporting. Really, you believe that they aren't entertainers and actually spouting facts that they believe?

    It's not much different than Howard Stern as far as I'm concerned.
     
  17. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I could be wrong (not being in their heads nor caring to be) but yes, I do think they are mostly behind their shtick (and I do also agree it is a shtick, to a degree). They haven't been hired on as serious journalists. Their role is to incite. I tend to think they ham it up a bit for bigger ratings but I also think it would be difficult for them to keep it up all these years, at the level they do, if they didn't personally agree with what they were saying.

    And no, they are no different than Howard Stern. Howard Stern may get great ratings for bringing women onto his show to masturbate to orgasm in front of him but I believe he enjoys it. If he were the opposite of his persona and in truth, found it morally disgusting or even a tedious chore he was forced to do day after day, I think he'd have found another shtik by now. The increasing outrageousness of his show has all been his doing, though it wouldn't be too unbelievable to discover he agreed to such outrageousness in exchange for the $400 million. But I still stay, given his long history, he gets off on it all.

    But like I originally said, I could be wrong about Rush, Hannity, Bill, et al. Maybe there are people out there who can completely divorce themselves from themselves for a few hours a day, year after year, and maybe they can even manage to get better at being who they really aren't, but I can only hope it's the rare few who can be essentially decent and good, yet manage to incite hatred which they themselves don't personally espouse to, over public airways , day after day or night after night without anyone ever being the wiser. Without anyone ever realizing they didn't believe a word of what they were saying. Even the best Broadway actors start to burn out in their roles if they are blessed enough to have a real long run of it. And everyone who goes to the theatre, knows the actors are acting out a role and don't confuse the two if they happen to see the actors performing a different later on.

    When Rush Limbaugh goes to the voting booth in November, I can almost guarantee he won't vote for Obama or any democrat. The man is a right wing conservative. If he's not, give him an Oscar award for best actor of the last twenty years.

    If he's doing what he does just for the money, he's even worse a human being than if he actually believed the things he was paid to say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  18. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    When you focus on reality, you tend to see actually happening instances of religious morality that threaten the rights of the American public, rather than the things arising from baseless concerns that aren't really happening.

    Worry about Sharia law in the U.S. when it presents itself as an actual threat to existing rights. For now, I recommend directing your concerns on actually happening threats, whether they be state level or federal level:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...e-single-parents-for-child-abuse-and-neglect/


    Let me be clear:
    There are religious fanatics currently threatening the rights and freedoms of the American public on all levels of government. The fanatics I speak of aren't Muslim; they are Christian, and they have legislative power that they unabashedly exercise in step with their faith. At least one hopes to run for the most powerful political office in 2012 under the banner of one of the only two political parties to which such an office is feasibly available.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    American politics is a strange country.
     
  20. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Dude, it's the fucking worst