Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Yup, no Bush bashing here, folks  . |
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I understand, and I agree. If someone wants to read and go through this whole thread and believe that the whole purpose of this was to bash Bush ..... to me that is an excuse to ignore the true issue and not have to comment on the issue..... approval by silence.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Why don't you ask Dubya and one of his biggest contributors and supporters.... the Rev. Moon.
|
In answer to USTWO's question about what is a cult........ A very legitimate answer considering the Rev. Moon is considered the nations largest cult head. Yes it was also sarcasm, but the Rev. Moon is a huge contributor to Pres. Bush and through his papers and media a huge supporter.... so Wicca is to be a cult but Moon is ok now????????
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
You know what's funny, one of my good friends told me that if Bush were reelected one of the first groups he'd come after were Wiccans. I laughed thinking he was just paranoid and insecure with the religion he has practiced for 40 years.
I do owe him a huge appology when I see him again.
|
This was covered in the next 2 posts I wrote. And basically it is coming true as I see it. No, Bush hasn't said anything but I find it sad and hypocritical that the Feds (from US REPS and SENS to BUSH) who cried legislating from a bench about the Schiavo judges are now silent and not saying the same in this case..... and it is still legislating from the bench....and ignoring of the 1st Amendment and a court putting themselves above the 1st Amendment
Quote:
Maybe it's because the judge feels that exposing children to nudity is wrong, and people agree with this concept. It's no secret that there is often nudity involved with wicca; I doubt that the parents would expose their child to it, but it's also not something the judge wanted to risk. The concept is much the same as in the cases where children have medical attention forced upon them despite their parents' religious objectons, or if a judge wrote an injunction banning snake handlers from introducing their children to that sect.
Currently in society, exposing children to nudity is considered harmful, You can argue if nudity is harmful or not, but the judge was doing what he felt was right, and was wholly within his rights. You want people to be mad about this decision? Start attacking nudity taboos, not the lawful implementation of them.
|
First did you read all my posts or just the ones that contained Bush's name????
Again, someone who obviously has not read the article where the father says he does not practice in the nude..... And if that were so offensive and the sole reason why didn't the judge put that into wording???????
Most Judges and law clerks (esp in a city the size of Indy) have some form of legal training and should know how to word rulings to express their true intent...... that being the case..... the true intent ( prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.") and it is very obviously a thumbing of the nose at the 1st Amendment.
Again another right winger who wants to point to posts that have Bush's name in them and cry Bush bashing and holding desperately to excuses for a judge's prejudicial ruling.
So now from the Right I have:
- Wicca insinuated as a cult,
- a fringe religion that people change like socks,
- compared to Heavens Gate
- then the press article itself was challenged
and now.....
- Bush bashing as the sole reason for this thread.
- and another who seems to want to use the "nudity" issue even though it has been shown where the father says he doesn't practice in the nude already.... in the articles and in posts.
Have yet to hear a Righty say that this ruling is flat assed wrong and not make excuses as to why the ruling is ok.........
Where are you Righties? Show me that you can demoan a conservative judge as much as the Shiavo Judges..... (and by the way Schiavo was not a Fed. case (nor a Constitutional case) but was IMHO wrongly made to be one...... this is very much a Constitutional case, very much legislating from the bench and yet silence, excuses and not 1 of you are saying the judge is wrong.
Show me that you mean it when you say Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.... because that is EXACTLY what this judge did.... he allowed unconstitutional wording to be put into his ruling and upheld it as law....
If this had happened to a Christian family regardless of denomination (snake handlers, tongues, the polygymous sect of Mormonism... etc) there would be an outcry heard that would make Schiavo's case small in comparison. It would be on every news channel and the Right would be demanding the Judge's head.
And yet.......... silence and excuses and very very little national media coverage. So in all honesty, was my friend truly wrong? Because right now the party that Bush represents is giving it the silent approval IMHO.