?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

6 years.

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

6 years.

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
mucha mosaic
Today, I'd ask you all to take a moment to remember that our current president considered it to be in good taste to schedule an Official Defense of Marriage Week (or whatever neocon propaganda title was assigned to it) on the fifth anniversary of the deprivation of someone of both life and liberty for the means by which he chose to pursue happiness. If you need more information, click here.

Again: if you're planning to vote, I'd ask that you try to find an explanation for an act of outright murder- and for the current President's response to it. If you cannot find one, I'd ask you to answer the following question:
Based on the response detailed above (which seems an affirmation of the right to marriage overwhelming the right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness, as we were all endowed with by our Creator), based on the USA PATRIOT act (which doesn't violate the First Amendment in letter, but certainly bends the spirit over a nearby sofa and rabbits away on it), based on the unending detention of US Citizens who are 'prisoners of war' in Guantanamo Bay (Which violates the right to a speedy trial), based on the 'faith-based charities' initiative (which violates the separation of church and state): can we trust our current president's policies to preserve and defend our rights when they are exercised in ways he disagrees with, or can we trust our current president to continue his policy of commemmorating spit-on-a-hate-crime-victim's-grave week?
  • I agree with your points on all of these but the faith based charities thing. I think disallowing someon to run a charity and reciev teh same support as any charity simply because of the religion of the people running it is as bad as it woudl be if color of sikn was the factor that dissalowed governmintal aid. I think it woudl be a violation of he seperation principal if they wer enot allowed.

    Then again I find secular humanism and atheism to be just as much a religion as mormons or prostatents or hindus. We risk making humanism or athiesm the offical religion of the country if we are not carfule. Look at the mormons in france not letting islamic students wear scarves or christina student wear crosses.

    There should be no shame in bealieving .. no matter what you beaieve. We shoudl be equal in our rights to participate in the activities of the government includeing how the tax dollars are spend regardless of yoru race, sex, sexual orientation. or bealief.


    That said bush is a doo-doo head
    • the faith-based charities are not built with 'everybody who works here is a Sufi' in mind, though: they're built with 'this money is for helping Sufis'.
      That's a prejudicial allotment model, unlike the one that the United Way uses ('this money is for people who are poor')- that's where my argument comes in.
    • So basically you are saying you dont trust sifis'? Or christians .... only atheiestic humanists are to be trusted?

      Not sure if I give that much weight as the american athiest society or whatever had all the money laundered out of it then several of the thieves wehen and dissapeared the others.
      • I don't trust any religion with making decisions for the whole of the nation. A faith-based charity is a religious organization, which is making decisions about what government does with its funds. That's unconstitutional, in my view.
    • My impression was that the money was for religions with Washington lobbies.
      • This is very true. I chose the Sufis because I don't think I have any Sufis on my friendslist, and I didn't want to risk offending anybody belonging to any of the Big Three by using them.

        I actually like the idea of a Sufi faith-based charity, on reflection. Gifts with a sense of humor!
  • Sadly, Kerry said in the second debate that he also supports faith-based initiatives. That is, unless I'm on crack.

    Personally, I don't even think we should have "In God We Trust" on the money.
    • Personally, I don't even think we should have "In God We Trust" on the money.

      To me this is an endless reminder of the McCarthy era, as is "Under God" in the pledge. I think of this every day at work, because I'm required to pledge. I leave that bit out everytime, despite the funny looks this garners.
Powered by LiveJournal.com