What's this "our" crap? I'm American and born and raised in the South, but I worship no god. To presume all Americans or Southerners believe in any god is divisive and ignorant. No one's saying you can't disagree with this decision, but taxes are part of being a citizen. Perhaps it could become excessive, but that's an economics discussion, not one concerning morality
The letter was written by one of the major composers of the Constitution, so it's not a stretch to say that was his thought process in terms of what the establishment clause meant.
Roe v. Wade is about privacy in relation to decisions of abortion. As morally repugnant as people think it is, it is not the place of the government to dictate to people whether they can do it, at least within medical confines, which as I recall, is still limited to 20-25 weeks: essentially medical viability of a fetus outside the womb. You want to stop abortion: make advanced artificial womb technology. Until then, sex education is the best solution: encouraging responsible and safe sex.
Does Laffingwall think that people who oppose school sponsored prayer vandalized the school? Or is that just a passing comment to show that the school has piety (not that it needs it)?
The military doesn't have to respect Christians more than they give a basic respect to everyone, as they are obligated to in terms of discipline, etc. Chaplains have a place, though not everyone would use them. And Christians don't get special treatment; mischaracterizing the limitations on excessive fundamentalist behavior as "persecution" insults Christians or Jews who are persecuted in the Middle East because of Islamic and cultural/political prejudice against them
Does one cease to be patriotic if they have various reasons (religious, philosophical, etc) to choose not to salute the flag? Or, in a more extreme case, if they burn the flag?
I hope you realize that forcing the Pledge of Allegiance on students, especially as relates to reciting it, has been declared unconstitutional.
As stressful as raising kids with autism can be: I have Asperger's syndrome and I think it does cause my family stress (partly because I still haven't learned to drive due to lack of motivation and finding a job is difficult even if I could drive, which I'd almost sell a couple of years of my life to just have that basic skill). I don't think calling it an epidemic is accurate, especially since it's not infectious in nature. A surge in diagnoses, sure. And treating it like cancer or such is as ridiculous as comparing bipolar disorder to the flu. It can be tough, but we have to live with it. There are effective therapies and methods, esp. in terms of Asperger's syndrome. Autism in the sense that many people understand it requires more specialization and a constant level of care.
Part of this is personal and biased, I admit, but at the same time, education about autism and the spectrum should be accurate. Don't buy into Jenny McCarthy's malarkey that somehow the immune system is compromised by vaccinations in a seemingly excessive application. Speculation about origins is for experts and Jenny McCarthy is not qualified to talk about this in any capacity beyond "Oh, my son has autism, I've done research,"
Autism is something that can make life much richer for the parent. If you don't think you can handle it, then I'd just suggest not having children. Otherwise, bite the bullet and deal with it.
I got nothing better to do. Kind of allows me to understand the insanity a bit more. Also, I'm a bit of a glutton for it.
Conservative, I think you still misunderstand. The act itself wasn't the target so much as the context and detail of description in a conversation that didn't warrant it. He could've described other acts, like a rimjob or creampie, various sorts of sexual acts and it would've still been considered disgusting. The fact that it's a homosexual act is incidental.
Bottom line, it's the appropriateness of the comment itself, not the specific content in question
lkeithlu didn't call homosexuality disgusting. Reading in context of the discussion, you'd see that the thing called disgusting was focusing on the sexual act for arguing why homosexuality is wrong.
Historically, sodomy probably focused on anal sex, but other acts have fallen under the definition, either legally or morally. But merely because there's a precedence for one definition doesn't suggest that the term should be exclusively defined as such. It's as antiquated a word as "negro" or even calling a black person a "colored" person.
The fact that you insist on using that in contrast to other terms that work just as well with the same amount of syllables (anal sex or even buggery, as British as the word is) makes me think that the problem isn't the dictionary so much as that the common usage defined by Webster is primarily religious in nature and thus isn't focusing on the act and its moral nature, but the association to a morally repulsive place in the bible.
I won't even get into the discussion of whether homosexuality was the sin, since the Bible itself even focuses more on another horrible act perpetrated, but suffice to say, I don't think this discussion can go anywhere when you are stuck in the 18th century in terms of sexual morals.