stevoh

If an individual, without permission, posts a religious artifact or symbol on government property, then of course its not an endorsement by the government. But if there is a stone tablet with the ten commandments permenantly installed in front of government property, then yes, this is an endorsement of that religion. The implication of an endorsement is due to proximity. The religious item that belongs to only one religion is displayed in front of a non religious building. That implies endorsement. When I go to a church, even on public property, there is no mixed message. I know what the purpose of the church is. I just don't want the courthouse to also have references to a religion. Because its purpose is not religious. Individuals can express any belief they wish. A turban or a ten commandments shirt, by proximity, imply that person has a relationship with a specific religion. Same thing with a public building that has a permenant religious installation. It implies a relationship between the building and the religion. On a church? Fine. On a courthouse? No.

If I see someones home with the ten commandments posted on that individuals property, I see it as an individuals expression of belief. If I see someones office with a copy of the 10 commandments on the wall, I see it as an individuals expression of belief. If I see the 10 commandments on the front lawn of a court house, I see it as an endorsement of that religion by the govenment. That goes beyond allowing the individual to express their belief system and implies government endorses christianity over all other beliefs. Publicly owned areas should be religion nuetral, either display nothing, or display religiously meaningful symbols from many different religions to show the government supports freedom of religious choice. Allowing just one religions symbol to appear on public property is the first step towards governments making laws regarding the establishment of a religion. It implies endorsement over all others.

She needs to get a few more things up than that. (no pun intented)

When I first heard Sarah Palin speak I imagine my reaction was similar to the first time a republican heard Obama speak. Oh crap! She has definitely retained that folksy charm and rural wisdom she seems to eminate. As the last election showed however, you need to have some other skills to qualify for the POTUS. If she can study up and get some more worldly understanding of various issues that go beyond Alaska and in fact beyond American borders, and develop sound conservative policy based on that, she will be a force to be reckoned with. However, if she continues to gain the media spotlight for wars with Letterman as opposed to sensible conservative policy changes, then her odds considerably decrease.

The accomplishments that most people agree with are simply not newsworthy. Not even Fox news can come up with a strong case against being better prepared for hurricanes. Obama has also made some sensible changes to recent drug laws that I cannot locate in the MSM except for a small article on a drug user having specific charges dropped. Its not like they aren't putting it out there, they had a half day media conference for the FEMA issue, and most issues are outlined on the government website. They just don't sell as many papers as "racist latinos" or "terrorists on American soil".

Take a look at some of the less newsworthy items he has been working on, such as hurricane preparedness and FEMA improvements. The contraversial news items get all the press, meanwhile he is accomplishing measurable good work that is not reported on. In other words, on hurricane preparedness and other items, he has made practical and feasible changes that are already in action.

Did the pharmacist try and remove the gun? Was the boy unconscious but still within reach of his weapon? Shoot him again in the leg, remove the weapon, that is the most drastic course of action I could defend. Unloading 5 rounds into the abdomen of a downed man is not being worried about potential retaliation. It is the intent to murder.

Well, glad to know you know more about what she meant than she herself does!

I think in our current political climate that any slight against a minority group from the majority is going to be a huge newsworthy item, whereas a minority group passing judgement on the majority is "ok" because of their background. I don't agree with it, and I hope to eventually have a world where a persons race, color, and sexual orientation simply doesn't matter, but I also understand that previously oppressed minorities have a right to feel empowered. I just wish it wasn't at the expense of the majority. And as far as the MSM defending her and the press being Obamas lap dog. I have two comments, the press and in fact the democrats are not letting Obama simply have his way, see "guantanimo detainees", and secondly, the media IS left wing biased, and I am happy to to have them on our side

So you feel being gay is a lifestyle choice? And being straight isn't?

Like I said, I am left wing biased, so unless I have really compelling evidence otherwise, I will always give another left winger the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt, that in the same situation, if these words had come from a republican, I would view it as spin also. But since it comes from a left winger, I see it as an honest mistep.

While I understand the necessity of programs such as affirmative action, racism against non whites isn't changed through simply saying "don't be a racist", I think in this case her wording was regrettable. While I am waiting for her own response to this issue before forming any firm conclusions about what she really meant, the White House Press secretary himself has stated: I 100% agree with his assertation.

First off, yes, I am left wing biased. I fully recognize that when I read something like this, I am going to going to give anyone from Obama's team the benefit of the doubt, while anyone from the republicans I would be all over like a horny dog on your leg at a family picnic. The key for me is the statement "who hasn't lived that life". I DO happen to believe that diversity of experience will lead to better judgement, so I agree with that portion of the statement. I DO also think its unfortunate that the phrase "latino woman" is part of the statement. It does indicate, to me anyway, a bias. I could argue that a slight bias that way is an effective counter to historially obvious biases FOR white males, but I won't. For me to support it fully, it would read: "Second, I would hope that a wise person with richness of experience..."

If Obama had nominated the pope the repubs would attack him. It doesn't really matter who she is, its who nominated her. Proof? Bush Senior had also appointed her to a vital position.

I have read all about wrights beliefs, cones beliefs, Obamas years in church, and, thanks to you, even read Michelle Obama's thesis, and STILL come to the conclusion that Obama is not racist, this automatically makes me reverse racist? Sounds to me like you think anyone that disagrees with you is simply reverse racist, rather than capable of independent thought. Pretty easy way to justify your own racism I suppose.

I just did read it, and I read the intelligent posturings of a young woman finding herself on the outside of a predominantly white society at Princeton. I found more hate in one of your posts than I did in her entire thesis.

Not from Obama The fact that you went after Michelle Obama, who has none of the background of Barak, as well. Your targets real associations obviously aren't important, the fact that she is BLACK does. I can see that having a black person in power drives you crazy. Good.

I would rather spend 10 trillion dollars on helping my own country than 1 trillion dollars bombing another.

I look at Obama and his actions and I see no signs of Racism. I look at this thread and see many signs of yours. You disgust me. "which makes everything you say like a wet turd falling on my keyboard."

One Racist Outed

Sorry, don't see any evidence of that.

I think Cones work is interesting in context, he wrote the book in the late sixties, where racism was rampant and the only solution he could see to black oppression was revolution. I can also understand why he would reject a christian god that was part of the reason (however perverted) that flaming crosses were ending up on peoples lawns. Later in his life he expanded that interpretation (1977): "I think the time has come for black theologians and church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world...For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups" I believe that Obama has the ability to understand these people and the root of their motivation, as I do. I also happen to believe that Obama is not himself racist or anti-white, all of the family he knew growing up were white, I just don't see it. I have the ability to read and understand someone thoughts and ideas without necessarily supporting those ideas myself. Its part of being an independent human being with independent thought. I put more weight on a persons actions than potential influences, and so far, all of the work that Obama is doing indicates no racist intent.

I think you don't understand the difference between being critical of a countries flaws, and hating the country. In the same sermon where Wright said "God Damn America", he also said "God Bless America". You are choosing to interpret what they say as hatred because it matches your political bias.

Words aren't empty if he tried something. There is a huge difference between talking and trying to make change, as opposed to just talking.

Based on Obama's strong track record of action, I believe this proclamation will lead to some form of action, not the least of which will be the reduction of the American stockpile of nukes. Of course, this won't be enough for some, "its pointless" for others, etc... But anyone who thinks these are empty words that will lead to no action hasn't been watching Obama closely so far.