 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Agreed. Although I do go into "FF worship mode" here from time to time (no, really??), they certainly had feet of clay just like everyone else. (...) Good question in turn. Taking that a bit further, what would have happened in Britain? Would (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's true, of course--they were distinct individuals with distinct ideas. My intent, though, was to show that the document they brought to the table allowed the denial of rights to certain groups for the most mundane and terrestrial of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Careful, don't fall into the trap of thinking they were of one mind on everything. I fall into this trap a lot myself. The D of I, the articles of confederation and the constitution are held by many to be compromise documents, particularly in (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I think it's more accurate to say that our founding fathers believed rights to be inherent to some people, but they had no problem in accommodating slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. These aren't trifling matters, either--the founding (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
Our largely taxpayer-funded free to air TV channel, the (URL), now (URL) says> it can't sell archival footage of politicians to 3rd party documentary makers, unless they get permission from the politician involved. They think "...the ABC could be (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Huh! I guess I've never really investigated the meaning; rather I've just gone by how people use it (which, for philosophic terms, I'm more inclined to doing anyway, and reject outright whatever a dictionary says if it tells me differently (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I don't see why a true agnostic would have any problems with answering that. It's the next question that's the problem (What do you mean you don't know?). (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But the Declaration of Independance states that our founding fathers did. (...) Some are more mutable than others, particularly in Minnesota. (...) I don't remember ever hearing anyone else credited with a similar statement. It was a dangerous (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You are missing something. Just because a "right" is not universal does not mean it is therefore exclusive. I cannot deny that the US Constitution could have come out of another religious background, but I can deny that it actually did. You (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Firstly, I think "common man" is a bit inappropriate here, since it very inaccurately suggests that the majority of Americans are opposed to pledging "Under God" (remember that many non-church-goers still consider themselves to be religious). (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
