Comments on: Martha Coakley and the anti-American agenda.

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:14:17 +0000

stuff to prove it.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:09:08 +0000

be violated. So making me do something against my religious beliefs, would be forcing the State religion on me. The fact we have even had to have a “conscience clause” to protect us, is the true tragedy of our society. One does not have to be a Catholic to have a conscience about human life. There was a time when societies’ nurses and doctors would never have participated in the deeds that are done today.

By: earthmover

earthmover — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:50:49 +0000

He makes a very worthy and intelligent point, except that it happens to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

By: Third Street

Third Street — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:50:23 +0000

By: muffin

muffin — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:49:01 +0000

http://www.caneman2.com/DSCF0010.JPG

By: JadedByPolitics

JadedByPolitics — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:48:24 +0000

and before Democrats decided to KILL BABIES!

By: JadedByPolitics

JadedByPolitics — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:47:30 +0000

and is taking pleasure in the problems of the TEA Party Convention so yeah you are RIGHT he is SLIME!

By: Vegas_Rick

Vegas_Rick — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:45:57 +0000

are limited and clearly defined. And NONE of them are “life or death.”

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:42:57 +0000

Between defending the indefensible here and rejoicing in a blow to the tea party movement on another thread, you’re headed for a quick demise. Especially admitting you write for a hostile power.

I’m in a holiday spirit, so I’ll urge you be dispatched swiftly and painlessly.

By: beezling

beezling — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:29:33 +0000

“The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

This is not immediately an attack on people of conscience. What she’s saying is along the lines of “You’re terrified of rats, so you probably shouldn’t be a janitor, or “You’re scared of heights so you probably shouldn’t be an astronaut.”

It’s not censorship, it’s common sense. Some emergency room decisions require immediate life-or-death decisions which could easily violate one’s personal beliefs.

If you conscientiously reject what goes on in the emergency room, don’t work in the emergency room. And if the hospital knows that you might suddenly remove yourself from any procedure at any point when it is realized that your principles are in question, they sure as hell won’t (or shouldn’t) have you in the ER anyways.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:09:47 +0000

I say again that Red State is not the place to go off on random jags about disliking Muslims.

The matter is closed. Disagreement with this will be taken to the contact form.

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:07:50 +0000

Are we allowed (and I mean that in the broader societal sense) to look to what motivated him? What he said? His interpretation of certain teachings?

Or is all of that off limits?

Is Jihadism analogous to spontaneous combustion?

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:45:01 +0000

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:33:18 +0000

There is undoubtedly a line between attacking an ideology and attacking a religion, but if the ideology is grounded in a religious text, the alternative to crossing the line is leading with the chin

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2010/01/16/col-allen-west-answers-helen-thomas/

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:18:54 +0000

By: trapeze

trapeze — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:10:10 +0000

It’s a fact that the current terrorism threat originates with Islamists. That may be inconvenient but it is, nevertheless, true. It’s pretty hard to have any kind of discussion, even political, that touches on the terrorist threat without mentioning that, yes, Islam is involved.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:49:08 +0000

Whatever animus you have for Muslims, take it elsewhere. This is a politcal site, not one for you to spout off on what religions you hate.

By: nolan

nolan — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:35:40 +0000

what I consider reasoned, rational, supported arguments, completely lacking in any acrimony, derision or ridicule is what you consider smug, snide (you’d better look that up janis) and bigoted (narrow minded and intolerant, sounds familiar!). I’m quite tolerant of the Latinos I used to work with, even those here illegally. I do have a problem with La Raza, or would you consider that being bigoted? Every single Sikh I’ve met has been A-okay. The Haitians and the Bible-thumpers, the homosexual community and the enviro-nuts are all part of this country and the give and take of our style of freedom is what works. Have you seen the pictures of the protests in europe in which muslims hold up signs saying “Freedom go to Hell.”? How many Jews have used explosives to rid their community of gays, or hung them en masse?
How well versed are you in the koran? That’s a fair question, not antagonistic in the slightest. If you answer no other question, please answer that one. Did 9/11 mean anything to you? Or haven’t you got the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity to find out about this issue. I assure you, it’s bigger than ‘net neutrality’.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:56:29 +0000

Your views on religion are not relevant to this political website.

By: trapeze

trapeze — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:53:10 +0000

…because obviously the First Amendment protects the freedom of religion.

On the other hand there are certainly things that you may not pursue in practice of your faith…human sacrifice comes to mind. Blowing people up would be another. And that is where the rubber meets the road. I think you will be hard pressed to find a Catholic, Jew, Hindu or Baptist screaming “Praise the Lord!” (or whatever the Jewish, Catholic or Hindu equivalent phrase is) and mowing down innocents at a shopping mall (or military processing center) with a sub machine gun.

As we have come to find out over the last decade, orthodox Islam (as practiced in the Middle East and unfortunately almost everywhere else) seems to have but three choices for humans: conversion to Islam, enslavement or a quick and grisly death. And it seems that there aren’t that many interested in the apparently unglamorous role of evangelism when all of the glory surrounds butchering and martyrdom.

Still waiting for those mythical moderate Muslims to stand up en masse and repudiate the terrorist murdering thugs that seem to make up a rather significant portion of Islam’s adherents.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original politically incorrect belief that, yeah, we could probably find better candidates for certain careers than Muslims. As “radical” as this may sound to some, I probably would not get on an airplane that was piloted by someone wearing a turban. I probably wouldn’t be particularly trusting in the intelligence assessment of a CIA agent that whips out the prayer rug multiple times a day. Profiling? Sure thing. You betcha. No problemo. Bigoted and intolerant? Not by my way of thinking. It’s just that “powers of observation, common sense and self-survival thing” rearing it’s inconvenient head. I would rather be judged intolerant by some than have my remains dropped into an early grave by others.