"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
--Albert Einstein, 1929
Meaning I don't agree with what they are protesting so I don'g agree with the actual protest, not that I don't agree with their RIGHT to protest.
This is why you guys on the right are viewed as "the party of no". You have zero message except to complain.
Guys when you say you AGREE with a protest you are saying you agree with their views. When you say you disagree with their protest, you say you are disagreeing with their views.
Now if you can show me examples where that is not the case feel free.
But not supporting a protesting yet supporting the RIGHT to protest are two separate things that I have said from the start.
That isn't a 1st amendment violation, that is saying they should have chose not to at the graduation.
Again I fail to see how wanting them to CHOOSE to do something (their own free will) is against the 1st amendment. Care to show me how?
You don't think it's wrong for Dear Leader to be polluting the Notre Dame campus with his presence. Fine and dandy. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are a number of Catholics who hold the opposite opinion, and they are entitled to it. There are a number of pro-life types who are opposed to Dear Leader receiving any type of acknowledgment from a pro-life institution, and they are entitled to it.
As they are entitled to their opinions, they should protest if they hold those opinions with requisite passion--as it appears they do.
Let me repeat for emphasis: If they hold their opinions with that much passion, they should protest. That is the path of conscience; that is the right thing to do.
I disagree with your views here. I have not protested you posting here nor have I invited you to shut up about them. I support you posting here, even as I take the time and trouble to explicate at length the egregious errors of your ways.
Likewise, you should support the protesters at Notre Dame, and refrain from inviting them to shut about their views.
THAT is how you defend the First Amendment.
Protesting the view doesn't mean you are protesting the right.
Since you have a trouble understanding the concept of what I am saying I will give you an example.
I am sure you agree with the RIGHT to protest for gay marriage, but you don't agree with the view that gay marriage should happen.
So you support the right for people to protest for gay marriage, but you don't support the protest for gay marriage.
See the difference now?
When you say you support the ACTUAL protest for gay marriage, you are for gay marriage. If you support the RIGHT for people to protest for gay marriage you support for the RIGHT to protest for gay marriage.
Last edited by TheNextEra; 05-16-09 at 10:12 PM.
Ok, I confess....that is what I hope for daily. Big surprise, I know.
Actually on point, however, is that as much as he advocates aborting babies, even to the point of throwing the ones that survive abortion procedures in the medical waste bin, it may be credibly argued that accepting an honor from an institution which condemns abortion is disingenuous in the extreme.
A man of integrity with his views on abortion would not accept the invite. Not that Dear Leader was ever confused with a man of integrity.