What you have essentially said here is that you believe in nothing except that which is prevalent in the time and society in which you live. How can you effectively argue for or against anything with this in mind? The points you are making are largely incoherent or just poor argument. We go from talking about the first amendment and people being protected from the government forcing them to go against their morals, and now you are trying to sell this point that morality definitively amorphous without providing any reason for thinking this is the case. Moreover it seems that the essential reason you brought this up is to suggest that the government should enforce these changing morals, become the morality police disallowing those who want to follow their conscience, and forcing them to align with the morals of the state.
This pretty much sums it up...........A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.Today, where they have sex is the question and who has protection.Different time different morals. And yes, it appears that justthefacts believes that it is the job of government to impose these new morals, whether we like it or not.So far it's working out quite well:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htmThis link is close, but not quite realistic, since shacking up is now part of the new morality.http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.htmlAs the liberal grownups are pushing the new morality, our young people are paying the price with very high incidences of STDs.http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/age.htmThe new morality is great..................as long as it's ugly underbelly is hidden from view.
But this one was resolved like this:"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken." I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative. He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position. Good job conservatives!NO Liberal would allow this.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/#ixzz2CpZp7CMG"None of these foil hat blogs are "sources".I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.
But this one was resolved like this:"Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken." I would also bet MONEY that the judge is a Religious Conservative. He was also appointed by Gov Christie for life time position. Good job conservatives!NO Liberal would allow this.Read more: "None of these foil hat blogs are "sources".I thought you guys wanted to deal in facts, not talking points.
I'm quite sure that the court cases mentioned in these "foil hat" blogs, are real cases. If you've got evidence that these cases never happened, or that the results were different than what is contained in the links, please present it.
the court stated the following: “In the absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”
To recap, former trustees of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa sued the mosque after claiming that they were unfairly removed from their positions. When the case made its way to court, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen (a Republican nominated by former Gov. Jeb Bush) ruled that “ecclesiastical Islamic law” would be cited in the case.
You seem to be assuming these right wing, religious, nut job judges, who side with the MALE, due to their religious convictions,ARE SOME HOW LIBERAL and Obama's secret evil plan.You know how dumb that IS?The judge I cited was APPOINTED BY A GOP Governor!You guys like to ignore certain details, to make your WEAK points.
Canadians are fun. Not bright apparently but fun none the less..