• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University Tells Student to Remove Cross Necklace

Well it seems that there is a dictionary definition, as supplied by Boo, and then a mix, as defined by others. It would seem that Obama is at least part Socialist, a term Boo appears to deny. There also appears to be a stigma attached to Socialism because its seems to be made in Obama's defense that he is not a socialist.

Which leads to the questions as to whether 'stealth socialism' really does exist and as a nation is undergoing greater and greater socialism it can only be completed, ii it ever can be completed, if the process is always being denied.

having better social programs is not the same as having socialist policies. I am sorry, but as a person who knows about socialism, I can see no evidence that Obama is to the left of me politically (which he would have to be to be a socialist).

When the founders started the US there was no need for a decent program to help people who struggle so badly that they are living at the periphery of prosperity/existence. There was enough room and natural resources for people to "work it out for themselves". The founding fathers could not have predicted that the US would become a behemoth with 300 million inhabitants, with cities in which many millions live, where drugs/gangs/violence thrive and where there is a need for a good social safety net. You cannot blame the founding father's for not being fortune tellers, you can blame politicians that should know better.

Self rescue from poverty without help from the government (but rely on churches etc) is not realistic. There are just not enough possibilities to work yourself out of poverty, the economic growth does not exist and will never exist anymore. There are just too many people living in the US/world for that to be possible. And I would much rather pay a bit more in taxes to make sure that children do not have to live on the streets or for veterans to live in their cars etc. This will also have an effect on education, crime and prosperity IMHO.
 
Can someone please explain to me how wearing a tiny symbol of one's religion possibly be offensive?

I have thrown every possible scenario I can imagine against the wall and thus far nothing has stuck!

This is where I get one of my pagan friends to wear a pentacle on campus and then hit the university with a massive lawsuit if they fail to tell them to remove it.
 
It will be my policy to point out that Christians do not follow their own creed when they cannot turn the other cheek especially after an apology was given.

A more practical application of this principle would be "turn the other cheek, and then call your lawyer."
 
having better social programs is not the same as having socialist policies. I am sorry, but as a person who knows about socialism, I can see no evidence that Obama is to the left of me politically (which he would have to be to be a socialist).

When the founders started the US there was no need for a decent program to help people who struggle so badly that they are living at the periphery of prosperity/existence. There was enough room and natural resources for people to "work it out for themselves". The founding fathers could not have predicted that the US would become a behemoth with 300 million inhabitants, with cities in which many millions live, where drugs/gangs/violence thrive and where there is a need for a good social safety net. You cannot blame the founding father's for not being fortune tellers, you can blame politicians that should know better.

Self rescue from poverty without help from the government (but rely on churches etc) is not realistic. There are just not enough possibilities to work yourself out of poverty, the economic growth does not exist and will never exist anymore. There are just too many people living in the US/world for that to be possible. And I would much rather pay a bit more in taxes to make sure that children do not have to live on the streets or for veterans to live in their cars etc. This will also have an effect on education, crime and prosperity IMHO.

The definition of "socialism" is certainly slippery, is it not? It seems to take on whatever meaning is most convenient.
 
The definition of "socialism" is certainly slippery, is it not? It seems to take on whatever meaning is most convenient.


I would agree - mostly because a segment of the American populace has decided (without evidence) the President is a "Socialist!" and will twist and spin the English language and prevaricate in as many ways as possible in their efforts to 'prove' he is.
 
A more practical application of this principle would be "turn the other cheek, and then call your lawyer."
Getting your eye for an eye is reverting back to the OT, that is the wonderful thing about christanism, you can rationalize nearly everything with the canon.
 
The definition of "socialism" is certainly slippery, is it not? It seems to take on whatever meaning is most convenient.
No, it is just that some who read works by Goldberg believe they can twist meanings into something else.
 
WTF does any of this socialism crap have to do with the argument? Obama could be a radical anarchist and it doesn't make any difference because he did not make the policy nor enforce it. Socialism has nothing to do with any of this as it is an economic system which does not determine anything about the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of it's people. Talk about your derailments. If you want to argue the meaning of socialism go argue it in a thread that deals with it. Don't bring it into unrelated issues because you cannot deal with the actual topic and want to distract from the real issue.

It's here because these type of restrictions generally begin with the political left. Much like this. In Order to Form a More Perfect Regulated Community... | National Review Online
 
having better social programs is not the same as having socialist policies. I am sorry, but as a person who knows about socialism, I can see no evidence that Obama is to the left of me politically (which he would have to be to be a socialist).
There seems to be a link between Socialism and social programs but as you say, that doesn't necessarily imply socialism..

When the founders started the US there was no need for a decent program to help people who struggle so badly that they are living at the periphery of prosperity/existence.
Well of course there was at that time, probably moreso than any other time in US history. But the lack of social programs meant that neighbor helped neighbor, a tradition which continued until the government became involved. Now that philosophy is slowly disappearing.

There was enough room and natural resources for people to "work it out for themselves". The founding fathers could not have predicted that the US would become a behemoth with 300 million inhabitants, with cities in which many millions live, where drugs/gangs/violence thrive and where there is a need for a good social safety net. You cannot blame the founding father's for not being fortune tellers, you can blame politicians that should know better.
The philosophy of the country changed dramatically since 1776 with the largest changes coming with the baby boomers.

Self rescue from poverty without help from the government (but rely on churches etc) is not realistic.
It sure is. It's been done for centuries.

There are just not enough possibilities to work yourself out of poverty, the economic growth does not exist and will never exist anymore.
Not so. There are tons of opportunities out there just as there always has been in any free society. It does take a special skill to recognize them perhaps but there are many.

There are just too many people living in the US/world for that to be possible.
How so? I really don;t see the connection? The more people there, the more opportunities there are, if there is a free market system.

And I would much rather pay a bit more in taxes to make sure that children do not have to live on the streets or for veterans to live in their cars etc. This will also have an effect on education, crime and prosperity IMHO.
It seems that high taxes may not always lead to equal prosperity for everyone. Culture is more important than taxes.
 
This is where I get one of my pagan friends to wear a pentacle on campus and then hit the university with a massive lawsuit if they fail to tell them to remove it.

Perhaps not wearing a religious symbol of some sort would offend believers and you'll be forced to wear one. This is the insanity of it all. We are all being asked to smother are own beliefs because someone, somewhere, might be offended.
 
Look through my posts again and read your response. You said if the word is that malleable it has no meaning. Correct? And the word, as demonstrated, is malleable, I gave you several examples of why, in fact. Did you not see them? Do you not see that the word Socialism is malleable? Or do you believe that Castro el al had the same meaning in mind?

You're obviously full of good bars.

Actually no, that's not the case. Any person can lie, deceive, misuse a word. But the word itself doesn't lose its meaning. The meaning is still what it is. Showing that some misuse the word doesn't mean the word holds that meaning. We can correctly say those where not socialism in action, but what they were - communism and fascism.
 
Actually no, that's not the case. Any person can lie, deceive, misuse a word. But the word itself doesn't lose its meaning. The meaning is still what it is. Showing that some misuse the word doesn't mean the word holds that meaning. We can correctly say those where not socialism in action, but what they were - communism and fascism.

Some misused the word? According to your Websters definition, many millions of people throughout the world have misused the word. It therefore means nothing and policy definitions must then become more precise.
 
If Obama, Bush III, is a socialist, then so was his predecessor, Bush II.

But, back to the issue of Christians and whether they are persecuted in the USA or not. I say not.
 
Some misused the word? According to your Websters definition, many millions of people throughout the world have misused the word. It therefore means nothing and policy definitions must then become more precise.

Or better yet, attack tactics should not only be more precise, but more original. This is an old, old tactic. Trying to paint someone as a socialist so you don't have to actually debate the topic is as old as the nation itself. It's time to grow up. or at least ry something new. At thsi point I'd settle for that.
 
If Obama, Bush III, is a socialist, then so was his predecessor, Bush II.

But, back to the issue of Christians and whether they are persecuted in the USA or not. I say not.

I quite agree. And there is very little to support that they are, so it's not really much of an issue.
 
Getting your eye for an eye is reverting back to the OT, that is the wonderful thing about christanism, you can rationalize nearly everything with the canon.

I'm putting you on notice that your entire view of what Christianity and Christians are like is one big honking straw man. You really ought to learn something about how the faithful decide these issues.
 
I'm putting you on notice that your entire view of what Christianity and Christians are like is one big honking straw man. You really ought to learn something about how the faithful decide these issues.
I have seen enough examples of how believers use totally irrational views to justify their choices on getting a pound of flesh.

The point is that hiring a lawyer is not turning the other cheek....especially when multiple apologies were issued. That is not forgiving.
 
I'm putting you on notice that your entire view of what Christianity and Christians are like is one big honking straw man. You really ought to learn something about how the faithful decide these issues.


Ah, the ever true "No True Scotsman" argument when those who disagree with you point out that lots of folks who place themselves under one label may have lots of differing views.
 
Ah, the ever true "No True Scotsman" argument when those who disagree with you point out that lots of folks who place themselves under one label may have lots of differing views.

The 'no true scotsman' trope is not a valid defense against being called for a broad and false smear of any group.
 
The 'no true scotsman' trope is not a valid defense against being called for a broad and false smear of any group.


I would argue that it is a "valid defense" when one side says, "You really ought to learn something about how the faithful decide these issues.", refusing to acknowledge the very wide range of opinions, views and beliefs advocated by the billion or so people who call themselves Christian. As gimmesometruth posted: "I have seen enough examples of how believers use totally irrational views to justify their choices on getting a pound of flesh." and the reply is almost always one version or another of the "No True Scotsman" trope.
 
There seems to be a link between Socialism and social programs but as you say, that doesn't necessarily imply socialism..

Having the world social in the term social program does not mean it has anything to do with the political ideology of socialism. Social is what is good for the community. A lot of things are "social" like social club, social media, social science, social networking, etc. etc. etc. None of these things make them about socialism. Socialism is a political movement, not "anything that includes or references to the word social".

Well of course there was at that time, probably moreso than any other time in US history. But the lack of social programs meant that neighbor helped neighbor, a tradition which continued until the government became involved. Now that philosophy is slowly disappearing.

Neighbor helping neighbor is a nice tradition, but in this day and age most people don't even now most of their neighbors. The philosophy is disappearing because it is no longer possible in a country with 300 million people in it, where tens of millions are barely keeping their own heads above the water.

The philosophy of the country changed dramatically since 1776 with the largest changes coming with the baby boomers.

But IMO, there is a new rethinking of the philosophy needed to deal with the 21st century problems the US is facing.

It sure is. It's been done for centuries.

That is real nice if you live in the past, but the past is long gone, just like those centuries are gone. With drugs, violence, etc. this is a new day and age and "the good old ways" are not going to cut it.

Not so. There are tons of opportunities out there just as there always has been in any free society. It does take a special skill to recognize them perhaps but there are many.

That is real nice but not true, for millions and millions these opportunities are non-existent. That some make the "great American dream" happen for them is not indicative of that opportunity existing for all those who need it. If there are tons of opportunities, why are so many people living in ghetto's, hunger, violence and squaller? Because the "great American dream" success stories are the exception to the rule (that almost nobody gets out of abject poverty), not the evidence that the great American dream is alive and kicking and available for all deserving hard working Americans.

How so? I really don;t see the connection? The more people there, the more opportunities there are, if there is a free market system.

There is a finite number to most things is society/economy. Fuel, food and all other things of finite items get more and more expensive. People are not getting wealthy in bigger cities, bigger cities lead to more poverty, not more prosperity.

It seems that high taxes may not always lead to equal prosperity for everyone. Culture is more important than taxes.

What high taxes? With billionaires paying way less than other people. In the US a lot of people see taxes as an unnecessary evil, where a lot of Europeans see it as a necessary evil. You get what you pay for IMHO.
 
It will be my policy to point out that Christians do not follow their own creed when they cannot turn the other cheek especially after an apology was given.
It will be my policy to curtail this behavior before it begins. That way we won't have to turn the other cheek at every turn. ;)
 
Can someone please explain to me how wearing a tiny symbol of one's religion possibly be offensive?

I have thrown every possible scenario I can imagine against the wall and thus far nothing has stuck!

The whole thing sounds a bit queer to me. I guess those who are unable to fathom religion become gay at the thought of oppressing people who believe.
 
Can someone please explain to me how wearing a tiny symbol of one's religion possibly be offensive?

I have thrown every possible scenario I can imagine against the wall and thus far nothing has stuck!
Absurd and wearily familiar.

Perhaps they feared that multitudes of bookish adolescents would begin crying "Deus le volt!" and rampage around the Holy Land, sacking cities and taking back Jerusalem.
 
I support the employer's right to dictate the dress code.
As do I Jerry, although big government is usurping more and more of those rights everyday_

But most universities are subsidized by government these days, which is suppose be constitutionally intolerant of such religious discrimination and persecution_

What if Jews were offended by the wearing of a piece of jewelry with the Takbir written on it?

Should the words "Allahu Ahkbar" be deemed offensive because Muslim terrorists often use the words when they blow up civilians?
As far as I can tell, Islam has been received exceptionally well in the United States_

Especially considering the world-wide rape, assault, oppression, murder and destruction committed in its name_

Once a gay couple complained about cross neclace of mine and I was reassigned to another job. I was told they assumed I was against homosexuality and that made them feel uncomfortable in their ow home.

People are wierd.
ie; They were simply taking advantage of an opportunity to punish their perceived enemy; a Christian!

But, I wonder what would happen if a pro-life home-owner complained about a black worker in their home because they assumed he was most likely a democrat and therefore pro-choice?!

do I know that your anecdotes concerning conservative "oppression" on university campuses are worthless? Why yes I do.
I'm afraid I have no response to such an amazing well thought out argument_:surrender ..........:giggle1:

Christians in this country are not victims. Example?

When's the last time you heard church bells? When's the last time you heard people complaining about them?
Now how silent would you and alllll these Christians remain if in that same neighborhood there was an applified muslim call to prayer?

Again... you are not a victim. Please stop volunteering to be one.
Correct; but only because I'm not a member of the Christian Faith nor any other for that matter_

For what its worth, I don't have a dog in this fight PoRob; I'm simply pointing out the obvious_

This is where I get one of my pagan friends to wear a pentacle on campus and then hit the university with a massive lawsuit if they fail to tell them to remove it.
And some would have us believe the selective tolerance by liberals is a myth_
 
Back
Top Bottom