Len

I am really curious. While it may not be legislation re: religion itself, wasn't the federal government's involvement in the Schiavo case trying to legislate morality?

I am having considerable difficulty with the entire issue. Considering the "leaked" (and now admitted) memo that said "such cases are political opportunities", I wonder just how much cynicism is involved in professing "values".

It is all very confusing. What was once a move for less intrusive smaller government now seems to be gone and it is difficult to see the difference between the two parties in this instance, despite the rhetoric. Both seem to want more power and more control and (yes) more money.

On the positive side, how about the move to require passports for trips to Canada and Mexico beginning in 2008? Should be a revenue enhancer!! Living here in Tuscon, I am thinking it might just be a step in the right direction!!

Cheers!!

Jamie,

The issue you bring up (life) is indeed an old Republican standard. Most R's believe all human life is sacred and should be protected. Does that come from religion? Yep, but also understand that it has ALWAYS been that way, there is no "new" movement from the R's on this issue. If anything we are more lienient than ever. Anyway, it's a none issue in this argument.

Regarding the people who got involved down there, sure some were grandstanding, yet some firmly and wholly believe their duty is to protect innocent life.

Anyway, members will state their own p[ersonal beliefs and that's fine, you need to realize that doesn't mean it's going to become gov policy.

Well, almost all life is sacred and should be protected. If a person were on death row, he might see it differently...

Perhaps I picked a poor example (although I don't think I did), are you serious that catering to the so called 'Christian Right' is not central to Republican social policy?

First the memo was from a staffer who has been released.

Anyway, you'll get no argument from me that I want gov to legislate morality. My party has some very religious folks in it who cannot help themselves from trying to help you (in their eyes). Again, it just isn't happening and it won't. I don't think the TS case was about legislating personal morality really. Put it this way, cut out all the crap that was said. The basic jist of the rights argument was that we want a system that (when there is doubt) errs on the side of life rather than death.

Innocent life:) But believe it or not I'm not a death penalty fan (for unique reasons, in fact I may start a new thread)

No not at all. There was is and always will be grandstanding and opportunism by both sides when this bunk happens. You need to get past the inflamatory crap said and focus on the principle in balance.

Edit: Thought I'de actually answer your question:) Yes my side caters to the religious right in much the way the Dems cater to unions, gays, etc... They do it to keep the base energized. No one likes it, but it just happens. Good for us it is 99% lip service.

Hmmm, LBJ pushed, shoved, and forced the Equal Rights ammendment through Congress. DixieCrats voted for it, but didn't like it. Soon after, the conservative side of the Democratic Party (yes, both parties used to have conservative AND liberal sides, remember Nixon pushed EPA through on a Republican ticket) switched parties and moved to the Republican Party.

The DixieCrats brought the conservative religous right with them and slowly they have taken over the platform. It is no longer about keeping government out of the general publics business and states rights. We have moved further to the right, orthodox.

Seems more like a Communist state, government in our personal business and taking control of the people's rights for our own good. Please remember that the Communists were not left wing, Marxist liberals. They wanted control of all aspects of life and enriched themselves on the people backs. Full control of all aspects of life. Socialism is control for the good of the people, liberal by aspect, and equally wrong.

The Republican Party did not used to be about enforcing a conservative set of values on peoples lives. We were supposed to get government out of peoples lives and control the main aspects of a society: Transportation, pollution, parks for the general welfare, military, etc...

The things that states cannot provide their general populace based upon size and structure of their own local populaces and governments. It also provides for free trade amongst the states. Remember you used to have to pay tariffs and taxes to transport items across state lines.

Well, gotta go home and I'll see how badly I'm flamed tomorrow. I'm sure to have pi$$ed several of you off though my intentions are not that. Hope yall have a good evening!

Oh, Daddy, some people don't deserve to be in the gene pool, IMHO. I hope none of you meet some of the people I met while in military service to this country.