you are correct I misread your reply, my apologies,

though you are inconsistent with your support for separation of church and state

no but you are, try rereading my posts

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely! Her rights were violated?

#68 | Posted by Dirk

ok so you support wife beating,

how bout honor killing, you ok with that too?

btw institutions dont have consciences

The issue here is that the federal government is coercing institutions to act against their conscience and are doing so by force.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ

its done all the time who cares

Yea....you are a control freak! Ruled by fear of things which you do not understand, which is a lot. It's just unfortunate you are not alone in your fear.

#52 | Posted by Dirk

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?

First Ammendment, United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In other words freedom of religion trumps government "standards"

Continued......

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It really does amaze me how quickly the rule of law is ignored in this country by this president and others?

#28 | Posted by Dirk

No. 2 in the pro sharia law in america column

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach. Isn't that in the first amendment? Shifting the cost from the church to the insurance which the church pays for is a fucking smoke screen. It ain't free if their insurance is going to pay the cost and pass that along in the form of higher premiums.

#10 | Posted by Sniper

ok we have one supporter of sharia law in america, let me see how many more I can count

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

so what

Much of what I and a lot of other conservatives really dislike about liberals is the "end's justifies the means" mind set. This in a nut shell is why we don't trust liberals. When a state (California) can undertake a Constitutional Amendment in (Proposition 8) and the citizens approve by majority and liberal Judges over rule the people, then we conservatives get crazy. When a health care law is passed with bribes and trickery and violates the constitution and is against the will of the people because liberal politicians think they know better, conservatives get crazy. So my point is a darker shade of gray every day. Don't get me started on indefinite detention and the NDAA because it will turn to black.

#72 | Posted by paneocon

I guess you can see the hypocrisy of your own post. on the one hand you tout the infallibility and sanctitude of our representative democracy and on the other hand you demonize the same.

you ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? Courts and government exist to protect the minority from the majority, which is what prop 8 and the court decision was about.

oh the humanity, requiring healt insurance for all. I have many problems with the law, but condemning it as an attack on freedom is stupid because so often those who choose to not get health insurance are protected from the decisions they make

not giving a shit is one of the randian 10 commandments

but survival of the fittest rules motivated them to their actions

and government finally stopped them

I wonder what stops paneocon from robbing local convenience stores

in danger of applying godwin's law, nazi germany was fine up up to the point they invaded the USSR

Capitalism and Interspecific competition have strong shared similarities. Survival of the fittest and absorption and reallocation of the failed. It's pure, honest and virtuous.

#34 | Posted by paneocon

Tis virtuous to destroy human beings? On an epic scale at that?

exhibit 1- Enron

Hay PANEOCON----What's the moral argument against abortion if the free market allows a profit on them?

#31 | Posted by Zed

shit what is the moral argument against The Running Man style game shows

#24 | Posted by paneocon

IOW

Ethics and Conservatives

Our nation as a group in its representative government passes policies vis a vis, defense, education, social welfare, security, justice,etc

those policies have a price tag.

those policies establish who how those policies are paid for.

it has been indisputably established that the current system of taxation is regressive (do not cherry pick taxes to defend one system or another). When considering ALL taxes it is regressive.

conservatives want to a. have the rich pay less and the poor pay more and b. want to cut the services received by the poor but not those received by the rich

that is ethical?

Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics).

en.wikipedia.org

#16 | Posted by paneocon at

George "Mocked a condemned woman's plea for life" bush

When Liberals accept "the ends justifies the means"

{{COUGH}} {{COUGH}} WAR IN IRAQ {{COUGH}} {{COUGH}}

on the bright side the wife is ordered to give her husband an hour of oral