Shrillary - Going, Going.....

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

Foot baths and prayer rugs upset you. Do you get upset at judges who place huge marble monuments to the 10 commandments on courthouse grounds?

Are you arguing for more religious tolerance or just arguing against Muslims? Do you have double standards?

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>Foot baths and prayer rugs upset you.<<

Very smart. They are diversions.

The public schools are accommodating Muslim prayer rituals and the ACLU gave a pass on them. They would scream against a moment of silence even if the moment of silence does not favor any particular religion.


>>Are you arguing for more religious tolerance or just arguing against Muslims? Do you have double standards?<<

Your second question does not follow the first.

The double standard is not my creation. It was created by liberals and the ACLU who go after Christians while accommodating Muslims.

The double standard is also your problem because you have a problem with Christians who want to express themselves, but don't even care about the practices of other religions.

As usual, clueless about the subject you appear to be informed about. Only Christians are your problem. DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

Originally Posted By woody

Recap

>>the liberals are actively promoting the Muslim religion in the name of diversity<<

>They are? How so? Where is this happening? Examples?<

I gave evidence and you dismissed it. Very funny.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

>>> It's also revisionist history to claim that Dole was the first woman to run.

<Didn't claim that. Just said she did it before Hillary.>

Actually, what you said was "But, true to form, the media will never acknowledge that the first major female presidential candidate was a conservative and Republican."

Putting aside the typical media paranoia for a sec, they don't acknowledge that she was the first major female presidential candidate because, um, she wasn't. In fact, Shirley Chisholm (who did just as well as Dole) was liberal and a Democrat, and her run of course well preceded Dole's.

So the only reason you could call Dole's run "first" is if she somehow was "major" and Chisholm wasn't. Let's see. They each ran through one of the two major parties. They both won the same number of primaries (zero). Chisholm's run actually lasted a little longer into the process than Dole's. But Dole is "major" and Chisholm was not? That assessment couldn't have anything to do with your own biases, could it?

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

Good to see you back, Dabob2. Hope we see a trip report soon

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>The double standard is also your problem because you have a problem with Christians who want to express themselves, but don't even care about the practices of other religions.<<

Nonsense. I said nothing of the kind.

In fact, I don't freak out if there is a Christian prayer before a high school football game. I don't have a problem with "under God" in the pledge, but can understand why some might. Likewise, I wouldn't freak out if someone brought a prayer rug out at lunchtime and decided to bow towards Mecca.

What I do have a problem with are people who seem to want to have plenty of allowances for their faith while going crazy when similar accommodations are requested by other faiths. That's the double standard I was asking you about, and you dodged the question with a lot of blather about the ACLU. I asked if YOU have double standards when it comes to allowances for faiths other than your own. Your non-answer is actually rather telling.

>>Only Christians are your problem.<<

Untrue.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

The first woman to run for President was Victoria Woodhull, who ran against the incumbent US Grant in 1872.

The first woman of a major political party to run for President was Senator Margaret Chase Smith who ran in 1964 as a Republican.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Thanks, jonvn. I knew there was a woman who ran before she could actually vote, but I couldn't remember her name!

<Good to see you back, Dabob2. Hope we see a trip report soon >

Next week probably.

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>Nonsense. I said nothing of the kind.<<

Of course you did. You expressed the need for separation of church and state and ignored it when Muslims are accommodated with the tolerant ACLU.

>>What I do have a problem with are people who seem to want to have plenty of allowances for their faith while going crazy when similar accommodations are requested by other faiths. That's the double standard I was asking you about, and you dodged the question with a lot of blather about the ACLU. I asked if YOU have double standards when it comes to allowances for faiths other than your own. Your non-answer is actually rather telling.<<

What happened to your separation of church argument, which is quite absolute except when it comes the practices of the Muslims on public property. You can't have it both ways, but with the ACLU and liberals in charge, you actually can.

I did not dodge the issue. If the Muslims are accommodated, so should the Christians.

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>What I do have a problem with are people who seem to want to have plenty of allowances for their faith while going crazy when similar accommodations are requested by other faiths.<<

With this sentence, it ignores the truth. Christians are not accommodated, while Muslims are accommodated. And it is not about "the request" to be accommodated. Muslims are granted accommodated. They got it.

Christians are not accommodated and for the accommodations they have are subject to lawsuits to prevent their accommodations by the ACLU.

Thus the Double Standards lies with liberals and the ACLU, not me.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>Christians are not accommodated<<

Really? Look around a little more. There are Christian prayers at the opening of government sessions, and that's just one example. Chapels in hospitals (haven't seen a mosque in one), etc.

Increasingly there are movements to remove religion from government business. That goes for Christian, Muslim, whathaveyou. Generally speaking, I am in favor of getting religion out of America's govermental business, because invariably when religion is there it is seldom all-inclusive.

>>What happened to your separation of church argument, which is quite absolute except when it comes the practices of the Muslims on public property.<<

It's still there. The founding fathers were correct in trying to keep religion from mixing with the work of government. Whole Christian movements see it another way, however.

>>You expressed the need for separation of church and state and ignored it when Muslims are accommodated<<

I didn't ignore it. But it is interesting to see your outrage when Muslims are accommodated, while keeping mum when it's the other way around.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

There is some truth that some people would rather offend Christians than any other religion in this country. Now that's not say that some Christians in this country bring it upon themselves.

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>Really? Look around a little more. There are Christian prayers at the opening of government sessions, and that's just one example. Chapels in hospitals (haven't seen a mosque in one), etc.<<

I gave you specific examples in colleges where the two events had different treatment. Foot washing by Muslims are okay and accommodated while Christians are EXPELLED for doing the same.

Christian prayers are getting outlawed in more cases. You aren't informed, as usual.

>>I didn't ignore it. But it is interesting to see your outrage when Muslims are accommodated, while keeping mum when it's the other way around.<<

Outrage is your subjective response to my post. You don't have a response to the sorry use of separation of church and state by the ACLU has been compromised.

Again, Muslims are allowed a pass, while Christians are not.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

<<Now that's not say that some Christians in this country bring it upon themselves>>

Ty-Po

Now that's not to say that some Christians in this country haven't brought it upon themselves.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<You aren't informed, as usual.>

Oh, the irony.

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>Oh, the irony.<<

Yes, and that's the best you can do.

 

Originally Posted By ecdc

Apparently Woody still can't play with the grown-ups, instead choosing to hurl insults. Shame.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

>>Oh, the irony.<<

<Yes, and that's the best you can do.>

Not hardly. But I do reserve my best for the grown-ups.

 

Originally Posted By woody

ecdc: I responded to an insult. If you can't tell the difference, no wonder you don't get it.

 

Originally Posted By woody

>>Not hardly. But I do reserve my best for the grown-ups.<<

No, you're as good as the last post. You're an embarrassment.