“"where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce."
So why do you assume Scalia believes that in every case Congress "has the authority"? You whole article and attempt to paint Scalia as a hypocritical ideologue falls apart if Congress does not always have such authority, which is, after all, the question.”
bannorhill on Apr 5, 2012 at 20:09:35
“So if someone decides not to buy something can the government force them to even if they do not need it.”
BrighterStar on Apr 5, 2012 at 19:26:46
“A lot of people can look foolish when they think they can point to some inconsistency of Scalia. That being said, I think the Thomas opinion in Gonzales was the better decision. I am looking forward to what Thomas has to write about this case.”
“"It wasn't the secular left that brought us the disaster called Prohibition.
It wasn't the secular left that decided "E Pluribus Unum", a motto that is all inclusive for nearly 200 years, wasn't good enough."
Your reply seems parochial to me. It wasn't the Christian right that brought us religion-free Marxist-Leninism or Nazi fascism (Nazi also being socialist).
I am not trying to deflect your point or say that what you consider wrong isn't because there might be worse wrongs, but passing a constitutional amendment (not an easy thing to do) in a democratic system built on the rule of law and due process is hardly establishing a theocracy.
That's my point. for some, *any* attempt by *anyone* with *any* religious beliefs is seen as a theocratic movement. That's why I am confused when non-Christians only single out the so-called Christian right for condemnation.
I do not think citizens working and advocating legally within the democratic process to create their version of the Good Society is ever an attempt to establish a theocracy. I was merely curious why you, from your perspective, do not see how, according to your own analysis, the Christian Left's advocacy for encoding Christian Scriptural principles into law isn't seen as also trying to establish a theocracy?
I don't accept your premise, but accepting it for the sake of argument, you are not consistent in your conclusions.”
“As NT Wright wrote in "Following Jesus," Jesus brought words of comfort and discomfort, welcome and warning." Some may place too much emphasis on one or the other, but there is but one Jesus.
I am as dismayed by progressive Christians propensity for condemnation of Christians and non-Christians who do not share their "social gospel" priorities as I am the propensity of Christians on the political right for their own sets of condemnations.
What puzzles me, though, is the ungenerous attitude I sense displayed by those who say they follow the so-called "Other Jesus" of tolerance, acceptance and radical hospitality but are full of venom towards their brothers and sisters simple because they seem to feel that they focus too often on the "warnings" and not enough on the "welcoming."
Apparently those who follow this supposed "Other Jesus" get to condemn those they think don't follow Him the way they think they should in the exact same way as those who follow a supposed "Different Jesus" from the "Other Jesus" should be condemned for doing. The only difference being, apparently, that those who follow the "Different Jesus" are mean-spirited hypocrites while those who follow the "Other Jesus" are really righteous.
It's all very confusing. How about this: There's only One Jesus, no Other, and He sometimes spoke words of welcome and sometimes words of warning. His followers should "Go and do likewise" as He leads. God is Love. God is Holy. God is One.”
nowwhat2 on Mar 7, 2011 at 11:54:28
“I agree that there is but one Jesus. But exactly what that "one" is has obviously been a point of contention for centuries. We have umpteen denominations for this very reason. Christians (other religions do the very same thing in their own teachings) mold Jesus and the Bible's teachings to what's most convenient for them. It's pretty obvious that the Catholic church molded teachings to their benefit in the early years. Many of those teachings are still emphasized to day by both Catholics and Protestants. Progressive Christians are doing the very same thing. Emphasizing outreach to the poor and unwanted instead of emphasizing the after life and how to get there in one piece.”
“"There is no question the Christian right wants to teach fiction as science and would like to install a theocratic government. There are those of us who will fight the good fight to keep that from happening."
Then it's impossible to have a conversation with you unless I accept your own "fiction" as fact, which I don't, and we just sit around bashing those who disagree with us.
If I weren't a Christian I would be as inclined to see the Christian Left as wanting a theocracy as the Christian Right. Look at all the appeals to create laws and regulations in keeping with the Left's vision of the "social gospel" which arises as much from Scriptural concerns as the Right's desire to outlaw abortion.
The secular Left doesn't mind the Christian Left's advocacy for encoding Scriptural principles of social justice into law because they agree with the principles if not the motivation.
You can not have a democratic government without having peoples of all religions or ideologies striving towards their vision of society. That's how it works. It's only when Christians who have concerns not shared by "progressives" that you hear all the hew and cry about theocracy.
No Christian wants a theocracy, nor has there ever been a State ruled by Christian clergy, except the Vatican, but of course you've arrogantly set your mind in stone on that point already while considering others as close-minded.”
TanzaniaTeacher on Mar 2, 2011 at 15:41:17
“The British Empire, ruled by the king or the queen, who also happened to be the head of the Church of England. And under certain monachs this did mean that the state was a theocracy in more than just name. Queen Mary 1st comes to mind as one example.”
alterego55 on Mar 2, 2011 at 13:28:17
“It wasn't the secular left that brought us the disaster called Prohibition.
It wasn't the secular left that decided "E Pluribus Unum", a motto that is all inclusive for nearly 200 years, wasn't good enough. Instead, it had to be "In God We Trust" to exclude 15% of all Americans.
It wasn't the secular left that decided the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't good enough, until "under God" was added 70 years later.
Why were 250 graduates from Liberty University and Regent University appointed to the Bush Administration, passing over and replacing Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. grads? Let me clue you in, it wasn't because their law schools have a higher academic level - it was because they were Christian activist lawyers and politicians.
There is a cycle of theocratic "Great Awakenings" (gross misnomer) that have occurred in America. Every time we get bogged down in one of these cycles, we get theocratic legislation like the ones stated above taking us one step further into the Christian theocracy. And, with only a few exceptions, we never gain the ground back, and the propaganda machine leads everyone to believe it has always been that way and that America was founded on Christianity.”
“I"God is God, nor is he a repub. dem or conservative, is he?"
No, which is why I was careful not to identify political affiliation, except regarding myself, and then only within the context of national elections. The author write that, to many, Christianity seems "to be too narrowly focused on piety and individual salvation, too judgmental and homophobic, too directly identified with a particular far-right political agenda."
I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with a 1000 media sources telling those with little first-hand experience with the Church that this is true, could it? I have worshiped regularly in Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and AME churches in my life depending on where I lived, and never once have I seen anything that remotely resembles the hate-filled caricature of Christianity by the secular media.
I might be closer politically with some non-Christians than some Christians, but In my humble opinion, which may be wrong, it seems to me that "progressive Christians" are so obsessed with "defeating" the Christian right that they are willing to make alliances with any secular group who supports their political vision of "social justice," which, rarely, includes justice for the unborn.
The author has created a false dichotomy. There is no "Other Jesus;" it's not Either/Or but Both/And, and His disciples, no matter their political inclinations, need acting like we're in a beer commercial one side screaming "God is Holy" and the other "God is Love."”
“There is no "Other Jesus." We are the problem. There is no transformation of the world without transformation of individuals.
You have put up barriers to dialog. If you knew I tend to vote Republican in national elections, think abortion is both evil and the greatest denial of civil rights ever perpetuated and that I believe that sex is God-pleasing and moral only within the covenant of marriage, you would label me "far-right," a catch-all term used by the Left to describe anyone with the slightest conservative leaning on any subject.
You'd never learn that I am against the death penalty and war and you'd declare me a homophobe without us ever getting to the point where I said "I am not certain that a case can be made from Scripture for gay marriage, but I am certain it can not be made for any sex outside of marriage, so I have much less of a problem with a gay couple who declares they are married and lives faithfully and exclusively with one another than I do heterosexual promiscuity."
We have to be able to talk about these things outside the influence and domains of those with secular agendas. Christians on the Left and on the Right seem to have forgotten we are adopted into the same family and are of the same household. That pains me, but I never heard any "conservative" with the audacity to proclaim that there is an "Other Jesus."”
Murphdogg on Mar 2, 2011 at 12:58:07
“You are right about the labels and the cutting off of dialog. Here is my big problem with your pronouncement: "...so I have much less of a problem with a gay couple who declares they are married and lives faithfully and exclusively with one another than I do heterosexual promiscuity."
What gives you the right to "have a problem" with any of it? Why are other people's lives your buisiness?
The most important part of our being "created in God's will" is free will. By imposing Christian scriptural morality on the general society, you are in effect working against God.”
sunshine14 on Mar 2, 2011 at 10:16:18
“No one knows, no ones, heart, soul, mind or thoughts. No, either has heard this Dem. Pres say others wise either, to say only conservatives is still living in ones own flesh, ego, pride, vanity. God is God, nor is he a repub. dem or conservative, is he? No.”
“I police myself. I don't need anyone to do it for me. With the click of a button I can vanish without a trace, but I actually want some place like Amazon to suggest books to me based on my previous order, my wish list, the books I look at but don't buy and my Library Thing account, etc.
Do you not have the self control to block pop-up ads, turn off flash with an addon so it only shows when you click it, and control cookies? Why would your trust someone to do it for you?”
“"Oh, and BTW, the existence of extensions is not what this article is about. Its about making those extensions well known and enabled by default. Its about recognizing that the average user is NOT aware of such functions, and the computer manufacturers are not doing their share to make users aware. "
Some people just aren't concerned with it. Maybe they don't want them. Why should the government decide what is turned on by default on my computer? I don't care how ignorant the average user is; it's his or her responsibility to think and act, get educated, decide.
And who are these computer manufactures who aren't "doing their share?"Is the actual computer manufacturer supposed to do it, or maybe by ISP? No, wait! The maker of my router, the browser I use, or maybe my operating system. Or since I see it on a monitor, maybe they should. No, I know, my cell phone company because I browse with it sometimes. No, has to be the FCC because I use wireless sometimes.
What's next? The manufacturers of facial tissue are supposed to explain all the options for how to blow your nose! That's why no one could ever program a VCR back in the day. The governmental never mandated that the manufactures educate the consumer.
Take some responsibility. If you use a tool, learn how to use it.”
“"Of course there is an industry. Now you are the one being ignorant."
There are not enough characters allowed to define industry, but there is no browser industry, per se, in the sense that companies make a product and then compete for the consumer's money to gain market share. The only reason Netscape survived was they adopted the War Games maxim: "The only way to win is to not compete." http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/04/11378
They took the "game" in an entirely different direction than that implied by your original statement: "You'd think the browser industry, as competitive as it is, would have provided these tools a long time ago. So much for the 'free market'."
IBM and H-Packard invest billions into Linux. That does not make Linux a direct free market competitor of Apple and Microsoft. Red Hat, yes. IBM, yes, but not Linux.
No one picks Microsoft Windows in order to us IE. No one switches to Apple to use Safari (free anyway and runs under Windows.) Mozilla and Opera and Konqueror are not in direct competition with Apple or Microsoft or even one another, in terms of selling a product. And there are derivatives of Mozilla, like SeaMonkey, which are completely community driven.
Browsers are more like an entrance fee to get access to people in other ways, a tool for some companies, like Google, to compete, but they are not in free market competition themselves.”
“Sorry. I use free email and don't see any ads, so I thought you might not know or you'd have chosen an example of web mail that does not allow POP (e,g, Hotmail until last year.)
I also thought that since you made a distinction about which email account to use when writing personal information that you thought one was more secure than the other. I don't trust Time Warner any more than Google.”
And this stuff is open source. Since the browser wars and the Microsoft case browsers are free. There is NO "industry." Most are open source. So free market economics don't really apply like with widgets.
Firefox is modified and improved daily by "volunteers" software coders who want something, have the freedom to modify the code, and then share it because someone else might like it to.”
RattleCat on Dec 7, 2010 at 10:25:44
“Of course there is an industry. Now you are the one being ignorant.
Mozilla competes for grants just as much as Apple, Microsoft, and a dozen other players. Mozilla competes for industry and government certification just as much as anyone else. All companies stress their own development environments for website creators, knowing success in that arena will lead to hosting decisions, which in turn lead to hardware and software purchases. To think that opensource means no maneuvering or industry investment is naive at best.
Oh, and BTW, the existence of extensions is not what this article is about. Its about making those extensions well known and enabled by default. Its about recognizing that the average user is NOT aware of such functions, and the computer manufacturers are not doing their share to make users aware.”
I tired to sign-in with Facebook here yesterday instead on my HP account, and when I rejected the request to access my wall it wouldn't log me in. Then when I tried Google HP WANTED ACCESS TO MY CONTACTS! So I denied that also and just logged in with my HP account.”
“Please tell me how an anti-tracking tool will backtrace an onion router, like TOR.
It would literally be like trying to identify which onion the slice of onion on your fast food burger came from with the additional problem that the specific onion was mailed to that restaurant from an onion warehouse, but first the onion went to 8 other restaurants where each took off a slice and mailed the onion on to the next with no return address until the last slice finally ended up on your burger.
If we depend on the government to implement an anti-tracking solution it will only give the illusion of security. Which is why we should do it ourselves.”
“"I have a free gmail account, but I have enough sense to know to never send or receive anything through it that is personal in nature,"
You don't have to see ads with Gmail because you don't have to use their web mail. You can use either POP or IMAP and any email client like Outlook or Thunderbird. As for the personal nature, forget it. Unless you encrypt it with something like PGP any email (your ISPs or Yahoos, etc) is insecure. The only thing that makes anyone feel secure with unencrypted email is either ignorance or the crowd factor. By which I mean if in a stadium with 50k others and a sniper is shooting you're scared, but not as scared as you'd be if you were alone.
Chance are no one cares about your email, but if they did, using your ISP's account would not make you one bit more secure. At least Gmail over IMAP allows for SSL connections.
"The plain-text nature of e-mail and the inability to authenticate the sender of a message make e-mail insecure. For these reasons, you should consider e-mail to be similar, from a security standpoint, to postcards. Postcards can be read by anyone who comes in contact with them. You would not send any sensitive information via postcard, nor should you send any sensitive information via unencrypted e-mail." http://www.geekwisdom.com/dyn/emailinsecure”
Deaninphilly on Dec 7, 2010 at 09:45:40
“Yes I know email is not secure, that wasn't the point. My point was in relation to people being shocked to seeing ads when using free email. I'm also aware that you can use POP or IMAP, still not really relevant to my point.”
“No. You just haven't bothered to learn how to prevent it.
And there's hardly a point when posting to social media and blogs. We want the whole world to hang on our every though, what we had for breakfast, know where we are with geo-tracking, see our pictures and then whine when a company targets us with a local ad.”
“Any competent user can prevent tracking on his own if he wants. The tools are already there. When I do on-line banking, for example, I run TOR (http://www.torproject.org/) from a flash drive. Why do people think the government is the answer for everything? Be responsible for yourself. It's not like you can't do it; you just haven't bothered to educate yourself and want someone to do it for you.”
“"Second, people don't actually make the decision to do or not do something, hire or not hire, buy, sell, produce etc. because of the tax rate."
Of course they do. This statement is a perfect indication of how divorced from reality liberal economics is. What's funny is the author of this article fails to mention that while the over 250k cuts would supposedly add 600B to the deficit over 10 years the under 250k will add 7 TRILLION.
Again, the projections are always using fuzzy, non-real world math, but if the deficit is actually the concern where is the hue and cry about that on the Left?
"Third, yes, spend it. We need JOBS! Contrary to talking points, spending creates jobs, you can't create a job without spending money."
You just made my point. Apparently you believe only the government can create jobs. That's who gets the tax money. So if spending money creates job, and the government gets more money (which again it won't) and creates jobs (which they won't, not permanent ones) then let the private sector keep their money and create jobs.
The thinking of the Left on taxes is driven by nothing but a they-don't-deserve-it attitude.”
“"So inside the Beltway, wanting to cut $600 billion from the deficit -- the cost of the upper-income Bush tax cuts over 10 years -- bizarrely becomes a symptom of lefty partisanship."
First, like usual, even for professors, you take 2 years and turn it into 10.
Second, historically can you name one single time when raising tax rates actually brought in the projected revenue? Those taxes will never come in because those taxed will stop producing as much or go elsewhere.
Third, even if it does bring in more money it won't go to pay down the deficit. Congress will spend it, which is probably what you want anyway.”
Eraser on Dec 6, 2010 at 23:28:20
“First, if they're extended for 2 years now, they will without a doubt wind up getting extended for another 8.
Second, people don't actually make the decision to do or not do something, hire or not hire, buy, sell, produce etc. because of the tax rate.
Third, yes, spend it. We need JOBS! Contrary to talking points, spending creates jobs, you can't create a job without spending money. Why? What is a job? A person performs a task in exchange for being paid. Paying someone means spending money.”
oilfield on Dec 6, 2010 at 23:16:56
“sometimes they get in more money and spend twice as much.”
“Please don't put words in my mouth. Prophets never spoke out *for* a single government program. God raised prophets up to speak out *against* corrupt governments. Once, Rev. Wright said that if Obama got elected he'd speak out against him too. Where is that, I wonder?
I object to abortion, the death penalty and war. I speak out against them no matter who is in power. Unlike Mr. Wallis who chooses to champion only progressive causes, thinks he can speak for God (God's Politics)--can your imagine if a conservative chose that title--and thinks he knows what the prophet Isaiah would speak if he were alive today. What hubris!”
Guinster on Mar 16, 2010 at 22:50:10
“If a conservative chose what title?? And I didn't put words in your mouth - I used the words right OUT of your mouth. I give up.... most of what you wrote doesn't even make sense. “Broad, wholesome, charitable views ... can not be acquired by vegetating in one's little corner of the earth.” (Mark Twain)”
“If you think that quote comes from "Pale Rider" you have no business commenting on the Biblical view of anything. Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."”
“Also, when the people of Israel begged for a king, this is what God told Samuel (1 Samuel 8):
9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." [...] 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
It is in the nature of governments to be corrupt.”
dawnlight48 on Mar 19, 2010 at 18:45:36
“And His Name is....wait for it...wait for it....Blue Cross Blue Shield!”
“The Bible does indeed speak to the issue of social justice. Sometimes it is directed at how we act towards our neighbor, and sometimes it is directed at how governments act toward the people. It's just that progressives choose to only see the need for prophecy against Republican governments.
"But Solomon was not as wise and just as God wanted him to be. This beautiful picture was drawn with the tools of its own destruction. In explaining why the kingdom split into two parts, the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, after Solomon’s death, the Biblical account emphasizes Solomon’s apostasy, his worship of other gods. What leads directly to the break-up of the kingdom, however, has nothing to do with Solomon’s faith and every- thing to do with the injustices caused by his building projects. Solomon wanted to transform the united kingdom of
Judah and Israel into a mighty empire, and change of these proportions was costly. Magnificent building projects required huge numbers of workers and tremendous amounts of money. "
No government has ever been the source for God's redemptive, social transformative work.”
Mike Hayes on Mar 24, 2010 at 03:23:51
“I coukd not post a new comment. This site is messed up. Ariana, Queen of Liberalism. Fix it. Go after Glenn Beck and all the others when you have facts to dispute them. However, I have seen none. Most of your writers just write about feelings. we all have feelings. Unfortuntely we cannot make laws or govern a nation based on feelings. "do you think that the Civil war patriots on both sides wanted to go to war on feelings". You must stand up for what is right. The unalienable rights were given to us by our/your God. AND BELIEVE me AMERICANS immigrants understand this more than you do which is why they are here. Glenn Beck does not want to disparage churhes and he does not mine. My pastor does not preach economic justice. There is NO part of the Bible that teaches economic justices. That is is a liberal, progressive, iedeology that they would like you to believe has roots in the Bible.
Economic/Social justice has no basis in fact, other than modern EU ideas and fringe African American groups.”
Guinster on Mar 16, 2010 at 18:39:38
“Yeah right, and Republicans choose to only see the need for prophecy against Democrats. Oh please....! I agree with Eleanor Roosevelt's statement : “Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe, and which mean very little."”