paranoid yet?

[iain]

[freeclimb9]

"Freeclimb - Do you believe in the Freedom of Information Act to the extent that publication of certain information would breach national security and potentially get soldiers killed?"

In a word, no. The FOIA's usefulness includes keeping the Executive branch honest. Read the article .

[RobBob]

John Ashcroft's homework tonight should be to memorize:

 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." - T. Jefferson

 

[Rick_Sharpless]

funny how these islamic extremists attacked us because our open society was so different from theirs, and now in reaction our society is becoming more closed and authoritarian, essentially more like islamic fundamentalist societies. so basically their plan is working beautifully.

 

Touche

 

And we have an Attorney General (or Ayatollah) who wants to impose (his) religious law on all of us. He's already covered up the women in the justice department foyer!

[MtnGoat]

"Well then you shouldn't be scared about registering your gun(s) with the government. I mean your not doing anything bad."

 

 

You are of course correct, so there's no point in registering, is there? I at a loss to determine how a list of who owns guns legally, will prevent any crimes. I suggest you pursue registration of illegally owned guns, that will place the onus on those whose deserve the attention, since they're already breaking the law.

 

"I suggest reading about McCarthyism. When you read it replace communist with terrorist. A lot of folks had their lives seriously fucked up due to bullshit the government tried to pin on them. "

 

Thanks for the tips on history, that others don't agree with you, does not indicate they did not read any.

 

There are two aspects to McCarthism that need to be dealt with. First off is no one here is suggesting anyone be tried or convicted without evidence, hung in the court of public opinion, etc.

 

Secondly is the fact that McCarthy was *right* about many of the things he said, and regardless of his unacceptable actions this fact remained true. Communist cells and moles, and organizations funded by the Evil Empire did in fact exist throughout the US. That he chose methods that were extremely poor to address this does not change the fact that much of what he said was true.

 

"When you done with that try reading about the Salem witch trials."

 

Since witches don't exist, the nature of these trials should be self evident. However, Islamic fascists do exist, do kill people, and given sufficient evidence of their activity, organization, planning and actions, a regular old real live trial for those in operation domestically is *totally* in accord with accepted legal principles which require actual evidence for very real crimes, unlike witches.

 

"Just because this is the 21st century doesn't mean humans aren't able to do some fucked up shit. "

 

On that we completely agree.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"I don't trust someone with that much power who views everything in the world within such a religious context. That position requires objectivity, and from what I have seen, he picks and chooses his "enemies of justice"."

 

 

This and other comments here about keeping "religion" out of govt are cracking me up. It's so freakin' convenient to want "religion" out of govt when it's someone *elses* religion. Probably doesn't want religion out of govt when it comes to the arbitrary choice to decide hurting each other is "wrong". Probably doesn't want religion out of govt when forcing others to pay for social programs still others arbitrarily believe are "good".

 

Making sure you set your own beliefs outside the equation of what is "religious", while deciding someone else is, is completely arbitrary.

 

All morality is every bit as arbitrary as any classical "religion", and the most supposedly objective progressive has exactly, precisely the same amount of objective proof of their moral correctness and objectivity as the pope or anyone in any diety based theology... NONE.

 

Trying to set up an entirely artificial distinction between arbitrary morality and classical religious morality isn't defensible in any absolute way, and only serves those who wish to get a leg up on their opponents by saying they should be excluded while the observer, of course, isn't religious. Thus attempting to claim the mantle of objectivity for what is *still* a subjective position, as baseless as any ideology, for any religion they'd consider religion.

 

Won't wash with me, when I see someone comlaining about religion in govt, I just substitute progressivism, or socialism, or libertarianism, and it comes out *exactly* the same in the objective sense. Govt is religion, implemented.

 

All we ever argue is religion when it comes to politics and morality, and it's time to advance political discourse one more subjective notch by not allowing some to exclude others on a basis of "religion" just because it serves their ends in a debate.

 

Edited December 3, 2002 by MtnGoat

[chucK]

I at a loss to determine how a list of who owns guns legally, will prevent any crimes.

 

How about this? Say a discarded gun was found that was known to have been used in a terrorist act. If the legal owner was known, that person could be contacted and questioned, perhaps leading authorities closer to the perpetrators of the crime. The legal gun owner has nothing to fear from this. While at the same time, these records could much more conceivably be used to track down perpetrators than could a database of everyone in the nation who used "terrorism" in an email.

 

To me, reasons to track gun ownership seem as good as filtering general e-mail. I'm not saying that gun ownership should be tracked. I'm only saying that that would be a far better lead than storing up everyone in the nation who has written "terrorism" in an email to someone.

 

[MtnGoat]

I can see your point, but they're probably not just sorting for "terrorism", they're coordinating all kinds of data.

 

Which I agree, is kind of wild, and creepy, but the fact remains that we'd just plain better get used to it IMO because the amount of personal data on us is not going away, and will not get smaller. I have doubts the same as anyone else, but the point also remains that one is not convicted absent evidence of crime, and though this of course is subject to abuse, if we decide we cannot use how the system is supposed to work given our best efforts, there's no point in any legal system. The post from the attorney made some great points, but I personally wouldn't abolition of the system because of some illegally committed errors in it such as false prosecution, false testimony, evidence tampering, etc.

 

 

[Greg_W]

I find it amusing that there was no great outcry against belief in religion by government officials when Bill Clinton openly admitted that he read the Bible and prayed to help him make major policy decisions. Not to mention that he would often receive the counsel of religious leaders like Billy Graham.

 

Everyone has a moral basis from which they make decisions. Many people have a moral basis founded in one religion or another; this is NOT a bad thing. John Ashcroft is in no way attempting to "establish a national religion" as the 1st Amendment addresses. This is a tired and boring argument.

[freeclimb9]

Remember: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone is not following you.

 

[Muir_on_Saturday]

[iain]

I'm not going to waste time with your academics on what you define as religion. While in Missouri Ashcroft did not seek out and prosecute the attackers of abortion clinic doctors who by every definition of the word were terrorists. It seemed clear that he let his religious obligations stand in the way of his ability to perform justice, his job he swore to fulfill. That's enough for me, whether I am pro-choice or not is irrelevant. Whether I have a faith-based existence is irrelevant. He claims to be a champion of justice, which is supposed to be blind in this country. I believe he did not do his job because his religious obligations prevented it.

[Greg_W]

What are the facts of each individual case, Iain? Could it be that, in reviewing the case as delivered by law enforcement, he found that the State didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute? That DOES happen from time to time. I don't know either, but it is a possibility since we don't have all the facts.

[RobBob]

Govt is religion, implemented.

 

Mtngoat, read the Jefferson quote. He is a more eloquent and thoughtful speaker on religion and government in the US than you are, IMO (also less smug and sarcastic). He, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and others were deists, and light-years ahead of the likes of Ashcroft, and, apparently, you.

[Fairweather]

Iain

 

Why you bashing Strom Thurmond? Let's look at some prominent Democrats:

 

George Wallace....enough said

Al Gore Sr....voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act

Senator Robert Byrd...former KKK member

 

Your tunnel vision doesn't allow you to see the whole picture?

 

 

Edited December 4, 2002 by Fairweather

[MntnrMichael]

Polotics is messy stuff! You can find bad info about both parties.

[j_b]

well, what do you know? no impassionate cry for freedom and democracy from our fellow right-wingers as we are being stripped of our civil rights. I guess they are too giddy at the thought of all these ultra conservative rollbacks mandated by 18% of the voting age population (35% participation at last mid-term elec.).

[MtnGoat]

"I'm not going to waste time with your academics on what you define as religion."

 

That's fine. Just don't pretend your beliefs aren't religion until you can come up with some objective proof that they are not. I don't mean you saying you don't have a religion, I mean something that shows the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus are all wrong, and your belief system is correct and non arbitrary.

 

It's real convenient to decide what you want to believe isn't religion, while standing on nothing just like them, because it allows you to artificially separate yourself from them. Have at it, just don't expect anyone else to buy it.

 

"While in Missouri Ashcroft did not seek out and prosecute the attackers of abortion clinic doctors who by every definition of the word were terrorists. It seemed clear that he let his religious obligations stand in the way of his ability to perform justice, his job he swore to fulfill. "

 

Is it Ashcrofts job to do the legwork, the arrests, and prosecution, so you can fulfill this personal standard for what an attorney general does? I submit it's his job to oversee what goes on and if the policework was done according to normal procedure, he's done his job. Do you expect the Wa attorney general to personally hunt down and prosecute crimes too?

 

I'm not aware anyone was arrested for these crimes and then let go on Ashcroft's religious say so. Then your case would seem a bit more solid.

 

"Whether I have a faith-based existence is irrelevant. "

 

If you find it relevant for him, I think it's fair to find it relevant for you, since you see to be claiming faith based ideologies have no place in govt, and then define them so narrowly as to leave your belief system untouched in spite of the fact that is in every way, completely arbitrary when it comes to morality.

 

"I believe he did not do his job because his religious obligations prevented it. "

 

So his religious obligations extend to sanctioning murder? An interesting viewpoint.

 

 

[mikeadam]

No, I think most people, even right wing oriented persons decry the outright usurption of their basic freedoms. However, I would think that the right to live is the most fundamental of our liberties. If providing some non incriminating information to a government entity guarantees that right then I for one am fine with it. Most of the information is freely available anyway and no one freaks out when a creditor delves into their background. It's the same thing in essense.

[MtnGoat]

"Mtngoat, read the Jefferson quote. He is a more eloquent and thoughtful speaker on religion and government in the US than you are, IMO (also less smug and sarcastic)."

 

Wow, I guess I didn't read it when it was posted and I've never seen it before. I responded without reading it, even though I responded because I read it. So telling me to read it will help a lot. Hows that for smug and sarcastic?

 

Jefferson and others also wrote a fantastic document which described liberty in very libertarian viewpoints, and then forgot to include blacks. Whoops.

 

Are you going to claim that didn't need some adjustment to be consistent with the rest of the constitution, or shall we assume it was good as it stands? If we agree it left a bit of something out, isn't it even the tiniest bit possible so does his definition of religion?

 

"He, Adams, Franklin, Washington, and others were deists, and light-years ahead of the likes of Ashcroft, and, apparently, you."

 

Wow, I feel humbled. What I don't see here is any actual answer here to the content of my post, while you deflect and attack me.

 

So tell us, if you can, what makes your morality non subjective and that of the Christians subjective? What Jefferson thought or didn't think, said or didn't say, isn't germane here. I'm asking *you*. Go ahead and give me some evidence, as I asked Iain, that your morality is objective, not subjective.

 

 

[RobBob]

Wow, I feel humbled. What I don't see here is any actual answer here to the content of my post, while you deflect and attack me.

 

Mtngoat, you were the one who attacked Iain, who was making a plain, cogent point about Ashcroft. You did it with sarcasm and ridicule. What do you think you deserved in return? Iain's point was the same one I was making. I don't think he, I or anyone else on this board wants to philosophize about the relativity of morality in various religions. The rest of us were debating first the likely practical application of citizen intell collected by our government, and then once again the fitness of Ashcroft in his job, in light of the principles that our nation is supposed to be founded on.

 

Since you brought it up, amending the constitution because of omission versus amending it in direct opposition to the clearly stated intentions of its framers are two wildly different things. Saying they are the same is...silly.

 

Whether they were pilgrims, Amish, Catholics, Buddhists, or whatever, a lot of people came to the colonies/United States because it offered the hope of freedom to the religiously oppressed. Iain's point is valid. We have an individual who is, in light of this, ill-suited for his job. He is a religious fundamentalist, a zealot on the scale of the average US citizen. And either he is using his zealous beliefs as a prism for choosing what to focus his work on, or he ain't too smart. Or both.

[iain]

Fairweather, my point had nothing to do with political "sides" though you seem to try to make this an issue every time, usually flavored with some superlative about "blinders" or "tunnel vision". I was simply saying it is remarkable someone like Thurmond was still making policy considering his storied past. Secondly, every person besides Byrd you mentioned is not actively participating in the law-making process. Byrd could be considered in the same context as Thurmond, though at least Byrd is willing to be a rather progressive presidential watchdog over our international affairs lately.

 

Mtngoat I think Robbob gave you my answer for me. Ashcroft's strong ties to the 700 club and christian coalition are reason enough for concern. It would take a powerful individual indeed to defend abortion doctors by the laws in our books when one's religion considers the act bloody murder and a sin.

[RobBob]

Hey Iain,

You can have that ole windbag Byrd...wait a minute, I want him. Lookit all the money he has recruited to WVA. It's unbelieveable!

[Greg_W]

We have an individual who is, in light of this, ill-suited for his job. He is a religious fundamentalist, a zealot on the scale of the average US citizen. And either he is using his zealous beliefs as a prism for choosing what to focus his work on, or he ain't too smart. Or both.

 

Congrats, RobBob; this is the stupidest fucking thing I've read in awhile. How many other prominent politicians do you know who share similar beliefs? Not sure? There may be many more than you think, but you've never heard of it. Does that automatically make them ill-suited for their jobs? Your statement proves the religious intolerance of the liberal camp. Religious freedom not only means the freedom to worship, but also the freedom from descrimination due to YOUR RELIGIOUS beliefs regardless of your pursuits. What you are condoning is disqualifying an entire group of people from certain government service SIMPLY DUE TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. The basis for your mistrust of Mr. Ashcroft seems to be the simple word "Christian" and you assume that he is a religious 'zealot' bent on converting the Justice Department to some sort of Taliban-esque religious police force. Sounds a bit far-fetched, if you ask me.

[iain]

There is a difference between the typical christian American and Pat Robertson. I consider the latter borderline Talibanesque. There is also a difference between "prominent politicians" and the chief law-enforcement officer of the country. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who believes in some organized religion to be in Ashcroft's position, but I don't think someone who has such strong ties to such extreme groups belongs in that position. What sounds a bit far-fetched is extrapolating from the above statements to say "this proves the religious intolerance of the liberal camp".