Hi Beth! Great post, very clear and to the point. I should post something like that.

Wanna put it up on "We the People" too? (hint, hint) ;-)

Beth, thanks for the great post! Funny, I've always thought of myself as a "liberal" and I pretty much agree with you about all those things. I think our own democracy is entering a very exciting time, with lots of constructive exchange of beliefs.

Hey - when are you going to put up something I don't agree with?

I was wondering which one John doesn't agree with! ;)
I'm right there with you on everything. Great post!! :)

"The courts are flat out wrong when they say that Christians cannot express themselves but Muslims and Jews can when it comes to religious symbols."

What are you talking about?

C'mon, JDC, show us your true colors! Be contactable! You can always use what the upfront people use... Myname@DIEspamDIEmyhost.com

What are you afraid of? I use a yahoo account for this kind of thing. Sheesh.

As for what she means, well, it's her blog, I'll let her explain!

I am referring to several court cases that allow Menorrahs or the Islamic sickle but won't allow Crosses or Creche's on public property.

The only cite I have at the moment can be seen here.

There have been quite a few - recently there was one ( I believe in New York) where it was ok to have Islamic and Jewish religious symbols on public property because they are not the predominant religion of the country - therefor Christian symbols were not allowed.

I'll try to get the cites for those later.

Personally - no religion should have their symbols displayed on public property unless all of them do.

Well put, Beth.

The point I disagree on is "The Death Penalty should be abolished, and replaced with life in prison - no parol whatsoever."

I think there are 'humans' so vile that they should be shown out the door, posthaste.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU

Interesting case. I think the court blew this big time. Neither the menorah nor the creche should be displayed. I do think there is a difference in how they were displayed and that a person with my worldview (liberal atheist) reading a post from someone with an opposite (I presume) worldview is likely to read things into the non-reporting of the difference that may or may not be true. I.e., I think you overly slanted the portrayal but recognize that my perception is influenced by my own predilections.

I think you should do some critical examination of the 15 points (was it that many before?) you posted. It could be more tightly reasoned. (For instance, why are you proud of being a gun owner? Are you also proud of other purchses? Or is it that you are proud of the ability to defend yourself? I have different views about gun ownership than you do (again, I presume) but don't think you have to agree with me. Just that you should think deeper about it.) OTOH, your admission that you don't have all the answers about drug policy is a sign of strength.

Finally, I post with fake email addresses because I hate email and dont respond to it. I don't want to waste my time or anyone who feels motivated to write me

Yer still a weasel, JDC, but a polite one.

Okay, sticking with the subject of gun ownership, what should we be thinking deeper about? There's a large collection here (go visit my site, click on the castle) so obviously we have a financial ox to get gored should the grabbers have their way... but I'm curious - what am I missing? (I expect we'll founder on basic assumptions here, but what the heck, let's give it a whirl!).

If, as you posit, we have opposite views, why do you want to take away all my guns and forbid me ownership of them? Why does my ownership cause you so much angst?

As a corollary, if you do completely disarm me, will you disarm the government as well?.

If you do disarm the gov't, do you really, truly, think that will cause other people to leave us alone?

If you don't like my framing, feel free to frame it as you wish.

But yer still gonna be a weasel if you won't leave a real email address. But I'll quit pointing that out and accept it as a given... 8^)

ah, but JDC - what an interesting email exchange we could have!

I have thought long and hard about guns. I am 51 years old, so I may have been thinking it longer than you realize.

I learned how to shoot a 22 when I was about 10 years old. My 'Uncle Hank' would take me out to shoot beer bottles off of fences. It's fun - you should try it.

Believe it or not, I was once a social worker in Child Protective Services - so, please don't think of me as a cold-hearted right winger - anyway - I enjoy target shooting. I have more guns than you would be happy with, I'm sure, but I also feel secure that I can protect myself if need be.

Our son is now in college, and he was raised around many guns. He was taught from a young age the proper respect for weapons, and has only used them under our supervision at appropriate target ranges.

JDC, I don't know where you live, but gun ownership is very common where we live.

I have lived in cities before, and I know that I can NOT depend upon Law Enforcement to protect me and mine when push comes to shove - so I strongly believe that women should learn how to handle and shoot a gun for their own protection.

Believe you me, no bad guy is going to break into my home unchallenged.

TO JOHN:

I am already thinking of you as a typical right wing blow hard. Why? Because of my secular humanist outlook? Sure. But mostly because you type "why do you want to take away all my guns and forbid me ownership of them." when I never said any such thing. Hell, I wasn't even talking to you. And I don't care about your guns. Really. I didn't say I had "opposite views." I said different. You saw my earlier reference to "opposite" and assumed it here because, I'm guessing, gun ownership is very important to you. But you need to read closer.

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own guns. I think there are limits that could be imposed on this right that wouldn't impinge on the purpose of the 2nd amendmnet (such as tagging agents) but that's not at issue here. As far as I'm concerned, keep your guns.

You then go on to make your next argument: "if you do completely disarm me, will you disarm the government as well?" I assume this is intended to allow you to make the revolutionary argument. But really. Foolish hobgoblins or something likr that. Your question reminds me of nothing so much as the hilarious ranting of those who think that as soon as you allow gay marriage you have to allow marriage to dogs. Cultures make choices all the time. Many countries that do not have legalized handguns have armies with weapons. So it is possible. (Again, not talking about if it's wise or not.)

BETH: I grew up in deer country and am not freaked out by people owning guns. I've fired various long guns and hand guns. I have to say that there are entertaining things about firing a gun. I was depressed to learn that although it was very difficult to hit exactly what I aimed for, it was disconcertingly easy to get very close to that target.

In your reply to my post you list some reasons that you own a gun. Frankly, I don't care. My point was that I think it odd to be proud of owning a gun because it's just a thing. When you say you are proud of owning it some people will think you are fetishizing the gun. I think you make a weak argument when you say you are proud of owning the gun. That is why I suggested you might be proud that you could protect yourself. I wouldn't necessarily agree but it is a better argument.

Yes, it's crazy to allow the Menorah and the Sickle and not the creche. But mostly, you will not see creche's barred from public property. There was a supreme court decision that said it was okay to put "seasonally appropriate displays" up. In essence, they ruled it was not a conflict between church and state, since it was essentially not religious. I mean, it has a dual function, religious, and also kind of secular.

Agree with that or don't. But look at the Roy Moore case. Have you ever seen a judge put a religious Islamic shrine in the courthouse? No way. The thing I object to is observing Christians acting like they should be allowed to impose the Ten Commandments on the courthouse. We don't punish idol worshipers. We don't punish people for coveting their neighbor's wife. We don't punish people for not keeping the sabbath holy. So, the Ten Commandments really doesn't belong in the courthouse.

It's the rightwing, specifically the Christian right, which is trying to put God into so much of our public life, and I'm not talking about a harmless creche in the town square. Anyone who has a problem with that is a nut, and doesn't really represent most liberals.

That guy who wants to take "under god" out of the pledge, he's not a typical liberal either. Most liberals could give a flying crap about that. But if asked, I'd tell you, probably it should not be in there, if it's going to be official. That's like, you know, if you want my opinion. But I could care less, really.

About guns, go for it, I have no problem with guns. Just don't shoot me or threaten me and I'm fine. I won't be breaking into your house so I'm sure there will be no problems there ;). Anyway, I have plenty of friends who are gun owners.

One point of contention:
"I am worried that too many judges are abridging our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure - and the folks pushing for these searches without warrants are from both sides of the political spectrum - stop it, I say!"

Yeah, that's true, but it's from the Right that we get the "sneak and peak" provisions of the so-called Patriot Act. The weakening of the fourth amendment has come mostly from the Republican side of the aisle. I tell my Republican friends this all of the time.

One last point: I don't see myself as against conservatism, exactly. Sure, I'm a liberal, but... I don't see Bush and his administration as conservative only. I see him as kind of rightwing, and also, extremely corrupt. So, that's my consideration. Certainly you've had a lot of conservatives speak out against Bush, from Anthony Zinni to former Secretary of the Navy and conservative Republican James Webb. I'm referring to the lead up to the Iraq war of course. Here's what Webb had to say:

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest
strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly,
he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of
removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more
than that. He decapitated the government of a country
that was not directly threatening the United States
and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our
military in a region that never has known peace….

"There is no historical precedent for taking such
action when our country was not being directly
threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his
advisers have set will affect the economic and
military energy of our nation for decades. It is only
the tactical competence of our military that, to this
point, has protected him from the harsh judgment he
deserves.

"At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom
came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom
served, have attempted to assassinate the character
and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with
them. Some have impugned the culture, history and
integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe,
that have been our country's great friends for
generations and, in some cases, for centuries."

attribution:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/zweifel/69161.php

JDC - you're having trouble distinguishing a "right-wing blowhard" from the wheezing of a fat man coming up the stairs.

I was just framing the argument - and offered to let you reframe as you wish. I haven't made any argument, yet. Not really. I made statements, which would then be subjects for debate. Your comments on the statements indicated that we aren't that far apart on the issue - and you clarified the point you were making, showing that the assumptions I made based on your previous statements were wrong - which is why I offered the framing that I did.

Mission accomplished - you took the bait, and you reframed the argument.

And I was wrong, we didn't founder on basic assumptions. In fact, we don't have a lot to argue about, at least on that topic. Fine. Cool. Good, even. No need to get pissy about it.

As for "I wasn't talking to you", well, okay - but since you are having the discussion with Beth in the comment section on a blog - you were having that conversation with everybody in here. You want a private conversation? Leave an email address...

Where does 'secular humanist outlook' come into this? I'm confused how your 'shc' causes you to think of me as a rightwing blowhard. Beth's discussion of religious symbols, I guess. You are conflating Beth and I in that regard.

I haven't seen the inside of a church (except to attend weddings and funerals) since I was in junior high school, and thats a few decades ago. I don't consult the Pope before having an idea. Of course, that would be silly anyway, since I'm not Catholic. I'm not confirmed in any church.

You might be surprised at my thoughts on gay marriage. Or drug use. Or any number of things you probably associate with rightwing blowhards.