Dear Log,
«The [Texas] Republican platform also reaffirmed the state party's belief that the nation needs to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state."»White people are funny!!
Considering Finland isn't on the 'shoot everyone who isn't on the US side of terrorism' Jarkko would likely be deported...here's hoping we get to leave the country early
Most important statement in the whole article:
Johnson responded that the state Republican Party organization is made up of the people who take the time to show up for the caucuses and that the platform reflects those people's beliefs.
I was surprised the convention had been held already. I think I missed the primaries. Ever since state government class I've wanted to attend the convention. (Went to the local convention in 2000 but the other attendee had already given up and gone home.)
Ten commandments: that's exactly why my extremely religious family has always supported separation of church and state. You see, we are devout Christians and thus don't follow the ten commandments. In fact, my uncle got in trouble in school as a boy for refusing to say the Lord's Prayer. After all, one can't pray "Thy kingdom come" when the kingdom has already come.
Separation of church and state: I know. I'd just be happy if persons on both sides of the issue would realize "separation of church and state" doesn't mean "elimination of church-going people and practices from within the state." This belief makes some people from the right wing paranoid and some people from the left wing intolerable. As I said, I'm a big believer in separation of church and state. No, children aren't forbidden to pray or read the Bible in schools, nor should they be. That doesn't mean I want a teacher who doesn't share my religion or know the Bible trying to teach her beliefs to my kids.
RINO's: problem needs to be solved, and sounds like they had a good solution. I'm tired of hearing of Republicans who change party or go "independent," where independent really means "anti-Republican."
Infaticide (abortion): yes, I'd like to stop this. No, I don't want the government to mandate portions of my religion. I don't need religion to kknow that babies should be protected. No, I don't have to prove a fetus is a baby to stop someone from murdering him. The killer has to prove he's not a baby. No person shall be deprived of life without due process. We MUST err on the side of caution. We MUST be 100% sure our actions do not break this law. You may be 100% sure, but the country is not. The courts should not be 100% sure, either, and so should do their constitutional duty to protect life. No, I don't support outlawing infanticide to save the life of the mother. I don't know what I'd do in that situation, but this is not about having the government mandate portions of my religion for other people. It's about protecting babies.
Proof
TorgoX on 2002-06-14T03:09:50
No, I don't have to prove a fetus is a baby to stop someone from murdering him.In my experience with various modes of argumentation, I find that whenever someone starts stipulating the terms of burden of proof for the position(s) they oppose, then the useful discussion has ended, and that anything further is going to be mere aimless implicit reiteration of initial assumptions.
It's merely a heuristic of mine. I suspect that it's something to do with how rhetors' minds deal with (or fail to deal with) the recursiveness of burden-of-proof meta-argumentation -- i.e., who has the burden of proof for establishing who has the burden of proof for establishing who has the burden of proof for establishing [...infinite regress...] the burden of proof in this particular argument. Or one can view this (Najarjunacly) as a mere artifact of the futile attempt at mapping a continuous phenomenon (the "age" of an incipient life-form) onto an categorical (in fact, binary) conception of it (whether or not it's "human" yet).
