And Neo-con is a meaningless word ignorantly used by the many Neo-dems who, in their neonatal extrusion from their sequestered world, suddenly realized there are other viewpoints out there. Next time, tell me about the movie instead of ruining your credibility by repeating the neo-talking points contained within a narrow band of neo-aspersions.
I never heard the word "neocon" until after Bush's first election win. The reason I consider "neocon" as a meaningless word is that conservatives aren't new; there is no movement among the majority of those who call themselves conservatives. That is just my opinion based on nothing but impressions. I checked this morning for the origin of neocon and it turns out, according to article called "The Neocon Slur" (Dec 3, 2003) at Dean's World website http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html (http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html), "neocon" began as a slur directed at some in the 1970s who defected from left-wing attitudes and began to accept more conservative ideas. I don't know why some have adopted "neocon" as a descriptive term for all conservatives. I'd like to see a third party climb from the present political fire and straddle the middle. Polarization has left many of us wondering why we are beginning to feel alienated.
I'd like to see a third party climb from the present political fire and straddle the middle. Polarization has left many of us wondering why we are beginning to feel alienated.
You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.
3) What is considered gay-bashing? Does that mean simply not believing that homosexuality is morally right? Because I feel that as soon as I say that, I am cast as a bigot, a hate-monger, a homo-phobe, and a gay-basher. If I treat a homosexual person with respect, no more or less that anyone else, and do not discriminate against them professionally or personally, why does my moral stance on the practice cast me in this hateful image.
You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.
Something that Russel hit on here is that to be a good Neo-con, Repulican, Democrat, whatever, is that there are several completely unreleated issues that you need to agree on. What if I'm in favor of the aggressive spreading of democracy, but also in favor of gay marriage? What if I want lower taxes, but less influence by religious groups?
I disagree with you, and under certain circumstances I might even take up the issue verbally (I won't in this thread) but I will not challenge your freedom to your own opinions. I don't disrespect you as a person just because you think different things are bad than I do.
"Weakly unethical" means that I believe something is a bad idea, but I don't feel it's proper for me to go about policing others
...
It sounds to me like, in your morality, homosexuality is weakly unethical.
Deficit spending is spending more than you get in. Spending into a deficit. Spending less than you get in is possible. If you look at the history of the national debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) (U.S.Treasury site, they recently redid it and it is far harder to use, sorry), you will see that we had the debt essentially paid off in 1960. (The space race shot it to h**l.) This included all of the debt from WWII and rebuilding Europe.(The Marshall plan wasn't exactly cheap)You're not a Neocon unless you're a Gay bashing, Democracy exporting through force, Intelligent Design pushing, Deficit Spending, Prayer in School, Anti-Stem Cell Research Conservative.
1) By deficit spending, do you mean tax cuts? The answer to overcoming the deficit is not more taxes, but responsible spending, which we will never get from our government, democrat or republican.
2) I am not that familiar with all that goes with “Intelligent Design”, but I believe in God, and that God created us, the world, and the universe.
3) What is considered gay-bashing? Does that mean simply not believing that homosexuality is morally right?
4) I don’t think anyone is against the benefits of stem cell research. The dispute lies in the use of aborted fetus’s (SP?), and thus abortion itself.
Deficit Spending:The blue areas under BushI just show that in the last couple of years the deficit wasn't as bad as the years before. You forget that Clinton was the first president since FDR (I think) to shut down the government because he thought the budget was too big, and he did it twice.
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
True that the greatest surplus was under Clinton, and the greatest deficit was under Bush II, but Clinton presided over the largest economic boom in US history, and Bush got the dot com bust and 9/11. According to this chart the road to surplus started under Bush I and ended under Clinton. Also, Bush's second term has been characterized by a sharp decrease in the deficit. You could argue that the upswing was the result of Bush I policies, and the downturn the result of Clinton's. But I have a feeling they are due more to economic fluctuations that have little to do with whoever is president.
For instance, Conyers is the lead attacker going after the subpoenas for Bush’s advisors. He is also the one who said that if Clinton’s impeachment proceeded, it would “decapitate the presidency.” I absolutely detest that sort of thing.
If homosexuality repulses you, so what.
The Republicans always say the president has nothing to do with the economy when you talk about Clinton. However everytime the smallest indicator moves up now, it's all because of Bush's leadership.
If homosexuality repulses you, so what.
Repulsion is not a term that I would use, and I have not used anything like it in my comments. That is a huge misinterpretation of what I have said. You said that you didn't proofread, so I just wanted to point this out.
I do have a problem with people who think homosexuality is strongly unethical, that it's a moral duty to stop others from engaging in it. I am weakly opposed to them when they try to enact political positions on these grounds (and I think it's a really stupid thing to be spending serious time on); I am strongly opposed to them when they actively impede other people's liberty or when they engage in hate crimes.
If homosexuality repulses you, so what.
Repulsion is not a term that I would use, and I have not used anything like it in my comments. That is a huge misinterpretation of what I have said. You said that you didn't proofread, so I just wanted to point this out.
My idea was, it doesn't matter how you feel about it as long as you don't discriminate. "It could go as far as repulsion" was my idea.
A few years ago, abortion began to get stale as a red herring topic, so they invented a new one. It's called Gay Marriage. While everyone was busy arguing about gay marriage, W started a war, ran the biggest deficits in the history of the world, started spying on his own people and gave himself the power to toss anyone he wants to in jail forever without even charging them with anything.
That said democracy is about subjugating the minority's to majority opinion so I have no problems with religious groups or non religious groups enacting their democratic rights.
I think politically speaking, the only homosexuality issue on the table with whether same sex marriages should be allowed. Both Bush and Kerry agree on this one, so I don't think it's a neocon-only issue.The specifics of who stands where on the position is irrelevant in its usefulness as a red-herring topic. All that matters is whether the public at large will get fired up about it and stop paying attention to other things. Its the bright shiny object the magician waves to keep you from noticing what he's doing with his other hand.
A few years ago, abortion began to get stale as a red herring topic, so they invented a new one. It's called Gay Marriage. While everyone was busy arguing about gay marriage, W started a war, ran the biggest deficits in the history of the world, started spying on his own people and gave himself the power to toss anyone he wants to in jail forever without even charging them with anything.
The media makes the conversation topics, not the politicians. And all those things that Bush got away with were hardly ignored. They generated and continue to generate a lot of media coverage.
The media makes the conversation topics, not the politicians.
Reading all of these posts has me waffling to choose which ones to quote. I tend to see extremes on one side or the other with no headway made. We don’t see the back-and-forth in Washington; we only seem to hear the differences. I am very glad to see these posts and they only strengthen my ideas that most of us are closer in our day to day beliefs than the disparate impressions have led me to think. What I mostly object to is the vilification of people and ideas that differ from the dominant voice. For instance, Conyers is the lead attacker going after the subpoenas for Bush’s advisors. He is also the one who said that if Clinton’s impeachment proceeded, it would “decapitate the presidency.” I absolutely detest that sort of thing.
I am ambivalent about what anybody chooses to do as long as it is not harmful to people. I don’t really care is someone is gay, green, or feels like walking on their hands. But I don’t want to be told I am somehow bigoted, racist, “homophobic,” misogynistic, environmentally fatalistic, and a member of the Christian Right solely because I happen to be a white male conservative Republican.
The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent,
The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent,
Talk about your red herring issues.
The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees. Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".
The second was thoroughly investigated and the only resulting conviction had nothing to do with the naming of a non-covert agent.
Strongly unethical? Are you sure about that?Well since ethics are opinions not facts, Yes.
You also mentioned "the stripping of our civil liberties". Now, while I feel that is an exaggeration, this is something I feel comfortable with everyone keeping on eye on and questioning. There needs to be careful checking and watching over these things, however, without politically motivated accusations.
That's the thing. If the Democrats and Republicans want any kind of credibility on fighting for the things they feel are most important, then they have to stop squabbling in earnest over these meaningless things like the above two examples. Do they want to solve problems, or just sling some more mud? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer.I can't argue with that. Both parties are guilty of mud slinging.
As far as Clinton, I still have mixed feelings about his impeachment. To set the record strait, Clinton was not prosecuted for having an affair, but for lying under oath about an affair. That being the truth, there did seem to be a witch hunt mentality (much like we see now). It seems to be a pattern now that if a party can't beat the president at the polls, especially for a second term, the only goal for the opposition, Republicans and Democrats, is to bring accusations of scandal until the next elections.While Clinton's impeachment trial was about purgory, that he was questioned under oath about an affair is ridiculous. It shouldn't have been anyone's business except his, his wife's and the party(ies) he had an affair with.
The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees. Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".As a semi-but-not-really-recovering Washingtonian, no one is actually disputing the ability of the president to fire them. They're questioning the motives of the people who decided to fire them, as an en-mass firing (while a very common slash nearly-automatic event at the beginning of a president's term) is incredibly rare and in many ways unprecedented event three fourths of the way through the term of a President. Throw in hints of political motives for some of the firings (jeopardizing historical non-politicization of the US District Attorneys), the calls to one of the Attorneys from a Congressman and Senator (that act in and of itself in violation of ethics rules in the House and Senate), well, you end up with a somewhat foul-smelling situation that the newly Democratic Congress decided to look into. And as they do, the situation starts looking worse and worse. The Executive branch is unused to the Congress challenging it's decisions or really looking into them, and we can see in their reaction to this —gate that they aren't ready to deal with it.
The second was thoroughly investigated and the only resulting conviction had nothing to do with the naming of a non-covert agent.
That's the thing. If the Democrats and Republicans want any kind of credibility on fighting for the things they feel are most important, then they have to stop squabbling in earnest over these meaningless things like the above two examples. Do they want to solve problems, or just sling some more mud? Unfortunately, I think I know the answer.
But I don’t want to be told I am somehow bigoted, racist, “homophobic,” misogynistic, environmentally fatalistic, and a member of the Christian Right solely because I happen to be a white male conservative Republican.
That said democracy is about subjugating the minority's to majority opinion so I have no problems with religious groups or non religious groups enacting their democratic rights.
Does that mean it's OK to try to get there religious beliefs turned into law even when the majority do not belong to that religion?
While Clinton's impeachment trial was about purgory, that he was questioned under oath about an affair is ridiculous. It shouldn't have been anyone's business except his, his wife's and the party(ies) he had an affair with.
While Clinton's impeachment trial was about purgory, that he was questioned under oath about an affair is ridiculous. It shouldn't have been anyone's business except his, his wife's and the party(ies) he had an affair with.
I disagree so strongly that that reading your post hurt my eyes. The position of responsibility that man was in means that I want only the most honest and scrupelous of people. I want someone I can trust. If a man has an afair behind his wifes back he is not trustworthy. A man who lies to his wife, would not think twice before lying to the public. His "outing" proved that he was untrustworthy, and unfit to hold the position he was in.
Now someone out there is going to say, "They are all he same, so it does not matter". You are wrong, they will only get away with it if "you" let your standards slide.
Given a choice between candidate a) who lied about having an extra-marital affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter and candidate b) whose lies have led to the deaths of 655,000 foreign civilians, which one do you vote for?
(Note: answer c) "none of the above" is not an option)
"None of the above" is indeed an option, because the choice has never been between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Further, both the events you cite happened after those presidents were already in office, and the shit really hit the fans in their second terms. You can't find out about these things and then go back in time and change your vote.
Given a choice between candidate a) who lied about having an extra-marital affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter and candidate b) whose lies have led to the deaths of 655,000 foreign civilians, which one do you vote for?Does anyone have a link to Bush actually lying?
Candidates talk a lot, but they don't seem to write very much (until their term is over). What I would like to see (and maybe it's out there and I just don't know about it) is media outlets submitting questionnaires to the candidates. Unlike speeches, it would be much easier to assess their opinions and goals if they are printed and if the candidate doesn't decide the topic.
Candidates talk a lot, but they don't seem to write very much (until their term is over). What I would like to see (and maybe it's out there and I just don't know about it) is media outlets submitting questionnaires to the candidates. Unlike speeches, it would be much easier to assess their opinions and goals if they are printed and if the candidate doesn't decide the topic. Unlike interviews, it would be more obvious when they avoid the question. "What do I think about the economy? Well, the economy depends on the situation in Iraq, and let me tell you about the mistakes my opponent made there." They can give long, rambling, vague answers and run the risk of frustrating readers. Their answers would be scrutinized by the blogosphere and lies and inconsistencies will be found. The New York Time's questions would have a liberal slant, and Fox's would have a conservative slant.
Unlike a lot of wouldn't-it-be-nice politics ideas, this one seems pretty easy to implement. Newspapers, or even bloggers, just have to start sending in questions. It's fine if the candidate is too busy to reply, but that is a reply in itself, isn't it.
"None of the above" is indeed an option, because the choice has never been between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
If a man has an afair behind his wifes back he is not trustworthy. A man who lies to his wife, would not think twice before lying to the public. His "outing" proved that he was untrustworthy, and unfit to hold the position he was in.
The wrongful firing of people because they disagreed with current administration, the "outing" of an undercover CIA agent,
Talk about your red herring issues.
The first issue is a political fact of any administration for the types of jobs in question--presidential appointees. Nobody complained when Rumsfeld was "fired".
Second point, just because you remove a guy doesn't make it an emergency replacement.
Intelligent Design:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Bush said that he was in favor of both ID and Evolution being taught, but that it was up to the school districts, not the federal government to decide. Basically he was asked what he thought of the issue, gave an honest answer, and then said it wasn't up to him, anyway. Also, the judge that rejected the teaching of ID in public schools in Pennsylvania was a Bush appointee.
QuoteGiven a choice between candidate a) who lied about having an extra-marital affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter and candidate b) whose lies have led to the deaths of 655,000 foreign civilians, which one do you vote for?Does anyone have a link to Bush actually lying?
QuoteGiven a choice between candidate a) who lied about having an extra-marital affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter and candidate b) whose lies have led to the deaths of 655,000 foreign civilians, which one do you vote for?Does anyone have a link to Bush actually lying?
Do I have to link in everything from the yellow cake uranium from Niger?
Does anyone have a link to Bush actually lying?
Do I have to link in everything from the yellow cake uranium from Niger?
According to a book written by (I believe) the head of the American History dept. at American University in D.C., the following presidents should have been removed from office using your criteria:
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K. Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
This is only for "activity" while in office. Only Carter and Bush II haven't been caught. Oh yeah and the guy who died within forty days.
I always wondered how this could be and I came up with an idea. The same ego and charisma it takes to be president is also found in many serial filanderers(sp?).
Your right about the ego thing. I was upset to see Teddy in the list. If it was up to me, I'd put them all through lie detectors in front of the public and ask pointed questions before the vote. Lets get the real deal.
Your right about the ego thing. I was upset to see Teddy in the list. If it was up to me, I'd put them all through lie detectors in front of the public and ask pointed questions before the vote. Lets get the real deal.
I do not align myself with a political party. I'll vote in 2008 for whomever seems less likely to make this train wreck worse.
Eley in 2008, Promises not to derail us further!
Eley in 2008, Promises not to derail us further!
Eley in 2008, Promises not to derail us further!
Heh. Thanks, but I'll only be 34 next year, and therefore constitutionally ineligible. Write in Ze Frank (http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/) instead. >8->
"Noecons" have very little to do with conservatism. Conservatives believe in limited government, responsible fiscal policy and individual rights. Neocons apparently believe in running huge deficits and taking the rights away from people if it gets in the way of keeping themselves in power. BTW, W's gov't is the biggest in the history of the US, so what dos that say about limited government.
That said democracy is about subjugating the minority's to majority opinion so I have no problems with religious groups or non religious groups enacting their democratic rights.
Does that mean it's OK to try to get there religious beliefs turned into law even when the majority do not belong to that religion?
Yes. Thats democratic process. In terms of democracy it's no differn't to any other "group" trying to get thier wants and desires into law.
Amendment IFreedoms, Petitions, AssemblyCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First part means. Practice what you want, but you can't use the law to force it on me. Unfortunately, it says nothing about televangelists.
Republicans always have a problem understanding the Bill of Rights
Unfortunately, it says nothing about televangelists.
Amendment IFreedoms, Petitions, AssemblyCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Republicans always have a problem understanding the Bill of Rights
Amendment IFreedoms, Petitions, AssemblyCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
can someone please explain to me why my children are prevented from praying in school...
W has done something I never thought possible. He has made me think of Reagan as a good president. I HATED Reagan when he was in office. Now I wish I had him back instead of W.
And honestly Kmmrlatham, good teachers need that time to teach. The point of school is to teach and learn, not pray.
Republicans always have a problem understanding the Bill of Rights
If I read that correctly, can someone please explain to me why my children are prevented from praying in school but are forced to learn about homosexuality in class???
More recently if you look at the dates Jan 1999-Jan 2001, you see the debt in the last two years of the Clinton administration went up 46 Billion dollars. Sounds like a lot, but from Jan.2005-Jan 2007 the debt went up 1.89 Trillion dollars. Last two years of Bush I (Sept 1990-Sept 1992) the debt went up 831 Billion dollars. Last two years of Reagan (sept 1986-Sept 1988) the debt went up 477 Billion. That was more than a 20% increase in two years. These numbers don't even take into account inflation(these are all unadjusted numbers) or the fact that each subsequent administration had to deal with the debt left behind by the previous one.
If I read that correctly, can someone please explain to me why my children are prevented from praying in school but are forced to learn about homosexuality in class???
Homosexuality is not a religious subject. It's a human behavior that verifiably exists and is a fit subject for study in a psychology, sociology, biology, or health class.
The goal of education is to teach about the world. I don't believe it's ever appropriate to suppress knowledge. You don't get healthy, thinking human beings that way. If you wish to guide your children in how to interpret the knowledge they gain from education, that's your purview. But to maintain ignorance about the world and about the people in it for religious reasons... Well, not only is that an inappropriate foundation for public education, but I also believe it ultimately hurts the religion involved.
The way to get good spiritual leaders and good human beings is for them to know, understand, and empathize as much as possible. With everyone.
I completely agree. However there is a difference between teaching the concept of homosexuality and training children to regard it as universally accepted behavior. I have nothing against teaching my kids about the truths of life. But when schools teach against our religious beliefs by glorifying (for lack of a better word) homosexual practices as perfectly normal behavior, I take issue.
Don't misread me. I'm not saying that it should be removed from schools or that it should be suppressed in any way. But when it is taught as acceptable and normal but prayer is looked down on... there's something wrong there.It's not looked down upon, it's just not the function of school to be a place for prayer. Schools are a place for learning, not prayer.
I'm waiting for a day when it's P.C. to be a Christian. I'm sure I'm in for a long wait.
I'm waiting for a day when it's P.C. to be a Christian. I'm sure I'm in for a long wait.
I'm waiting for a day when it's P.C. to be a Christian. I'm sure I'm in for a long wait.
Move here. I live in Louisville, Ky. Where I live, it's socially acceptable to be a Christian. It's not socially acceptable to be anything else. I was born Catholic (but I'm in recovery now - hehe). I'm about two baby steps away from declaring myself an atheist. I'm not sure if it's due to a loss of faith or just an emotional reaction to my universally negative experiences with religion over the last several years. I've taken a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with religion in my day to day life.
About the KY thing... not the atheist thing.
I'll reserve my comments on that for a religious topic and return this topic to the neoconservative issue.
Homosexuality is not a religious subject. It's a human behavior that verifiably exists and is a fit subject for study in a psychology, sociology, biology, or health class.
The way to get good spiritual leaders and good human beings is for them to know, understand, and empathize as much as possible. With everyone.
What on Earth is there to study on that particular subject? I wouldn't want children having any sexual education from any Institution. My experience is that schools teach sex, without any thoughts of love, responsibility or consequence. Way too cold.
Homosexuality is not a religious subject. It's a human behavior that verifiably exists and is a fit subject for study in a psychology, sociology, biology, or health class.
What on Earth is there to study on that particular subject? I wouldn't want children having any sexual education from any Institution. My experience is that schools teach sex, without any thoughts of love, responsibility or consequence. Way too cold.
What on Earth is there to study on that particular subject? I wouldn't want children having any sexual education from any Institution. My experience is that schools teach sex, without any thoughts of love, responsibility or consequence. Way too cold.
Almost with you there. Rather than "empathize" I would say, "understand". Your version suggests some agreement. If you agree with everyone your in a world of confusion.
I don't agree that empathy connotes agreement. I think it's fully possible to empathize with someone, to know where they're coming from and what their problems are, and still object to how they responded to them.
The downside of having no formal education on these topics is that all of what human beings learn about sex, relationships, and the ethics of intimacy is going to come from oral lore: from their peers, parents, and (sometimes) religious advisors. The problem with this is that the quality of the information is unreliable. These groups should all have input, but many parents are dangerously ignorant about sex and relationships; peers almost always are; and religions are wildly variable in their emphasis on the health of the individual.Hmm... personally, most of the sex-education ive recieved has been completely useless to me. The only sex ed. class in which i kind of learned something was in 5th grade in elementry school, and back then, that was the last thing i cared about. After that, all the highschool sex ed was just repeating stuff i already knew from convorsations. Maybe i just have more common sense than other people my age, and dont fool around like everyone else. (im a good kid... i dont WANT to be but i am)
These topics are all studied, and studied well. But most people don't know that. Giving young people access to good information about sex and relationships in real life can only help by giving everyone a common foundation. Peers, parents, and religions can then serve as adjuncts, examples, and interpretive guides. They needn't be the only sources.
And yes. Sometimes, when my kids pray to themselves, either the teacher interrupts them with something or the kids tease them.now, personally i dont care about prayer. at my school we have a moment of silence after the pledge, but i have never seen anyone pray (maybe there are those who pray at my school but i dont see it). Anyways, while it does not concern me whether people pray or not, it does kinda make me mad knowing that a teacher would interrupt a student during his/her time of prayer. I understand the significance of prayer to some people, and that should be respected. Teasing because of praying is even worse. Those who tease are most likely Christian as well, and they should be even MORE respectful to those who choose to pray. There is a difference between not believing in another's lifestyle and bullying them about it.
And yes. Sometimes, when my kids pray to themselves, either the teacher interrupts them with something or the kids tease them.now, personally i dont care about prayer. at my school we have a moment of silence after the pledge, but i have never seen anyone pray (maybe there are those who pray at my school but i dont see it). Anyways, while it does not concern me whether people pray or not, it does kinda make me mad knowing that a teacher would interrupt a student during his/her time of prayer. I understand the significance of prayer to some people, and that should be respected. Teasing because of praying is even worse. Those who tease are most likely Christian as well, and they should be even MORE respectful to those who choose to pray. There is a difference between not believing in another's lifestyle and bullying them about it.
This also applies to gays. I cant say i believe in their lifestyle, but i dont abhor it, i pretty much just dont care. If yer gay, yer gay, i dont need to know, and if i do know, live and let live. This is really the only thing i have against certain religious groups. I dont like the people who say that being gay, athiest, whatever, is wrong. Its not wrong, its a state of being, and everyone has the right to their own life. being gay is NOT a choice, it has been scientifically, psychologically, and common sense-ly proven so. (and if ya thing being gay is terrible, food for thought: most everyone in ancient Greece and Rome slept with young boys... now sleepin with young boys is gross, im sure all of us agree on that, but hey, look at what theyve accomplished) being an athiest or whatever is a choice. no one HAS to believe in a higher power. no one HAS to believe in anything. personally, I've given up religion, yet i still believe in God. (i believe the actual correct term for that is infidel... doesnt sound too great of a name... damn you Islamic extremists!) I just figure that i dont need a religion to govern how i believe in God, ill do that on my own terms.
And there is a big gap between empathetic and sympathetic. It is one thing to understand someone and what they believe. its another thing to care or support that belief. I can empathize with someone who killed his wife because she cheated on him, but i'd be damned if i sympathize with him.
I agree... to a point. But I subscribe to the thinking that there is a difference in "being" homosexual, and "practicing" homosexuality.
If I were a pedophile, I would have a natural desire in little children. Sleeping with them, touching them, hurting them... whatever. Now I can CHOOSE to ignore these desires and maybe only entertain them in thought or fantasy. Or I can CHOOSE to follow them and try to fulfill my desires. Which choice do you think would be best? Best for me? Best for society?
Now, I completely understand that homosexuals cannot be fairly compared to pedophiles... a gay relationship is based on trust between consenting adults. I get it. But the idea of allowing desires to define who we are is wrong in my mind... no matter what the desires are.
We all have desires that could be harmful if left unchecked. Some of us have dangerous or even deadly desires. Some of us have more peaceful and nurturing desires. But I believe that if we allow our desires to define us, we lose our identify... possibly even our soul.
My 6.5 cents.
Now, I completely understand that homosexuals cannot be fairly compared to pedophiles...