Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together….

Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as…

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

nice post about this…..

Thanks for this post!…

What are you all afraid of?

This commentary was interesting because it highlights what is actually one of my biggest problems with Barack Obama (and it has been consistent since the 2004 election).

Barack Obama, in attempting to look respectful to people of faith, had disrespected people who do not have religious faith, and those who (non-religious or religious) strongly defend the separation of church and state. This started in 2004 when he identified a perceived hostility to people of religious faith as a primary reason for democratic losses (BTW, he was not alone, so did Hillary Clinton). What is interesting is at that time the fastest growing block of voters identified themselves as “secular liberals”.

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

First of all, most secularists that I know of, including myself, do NOT ask believers to leave their religion at the door. But, the Constitution sets limits on how much believers, or for that matter non-believers, can use the power generated by the public square, government, to regulate the beliefs and freedoms of others. This is an enormous misunderstanding, and I have been more than a little disturbed that Barack Obama has often contributed to this misunderstanding, because at other times he seems to understand this concept quite well.

Secondly, much of what is called the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality is in fact western traditions of morality, and even some almost universal traditions of morality. The greatest predictor of one person’s treatment of another is that person’s assumptions about who is within his/her circle of moral consideration. Unfortunately, cultural variation of this definition is enormous. For example, in many parts of the world men do not inhabit the same circle as women. Other races or tribes or other ethnic groups do not inhabit the same circle as “us”. This has also been a substantial issue with religions where believers inhabit the circle of “us” and non-believers become “them”. For sociopaths, “us” is only me. For most other people, “us” is dependent upon the circumstances. In some areas, “us” is family, for others, it is people in our planet, country, city, neighborhood, religion, gender (or gender identity), “race”, party affiliation, political orientation, romantic/sexual orientation, or school background. Most people extend the circle of moral consideration to members of other species to greater or lesser degree. One of the biggest problems occurs when one circle considers members of other circles by definition immoral. Sometimes, there can be some cause, but most times, in my very strong opinion, there is not. But when people operating under the assumptions that “we” are moral and “you others” are not bring these assumptions to the public square, there is danger. That doesn’t mean that such people are banned from bringing their beliefs to the public square, but there are and should be limitations on the extent to which they can implement their beliefs in the public square. I think people in this country, by and large, understand this, and WILL REBEL at uncompromising attempts of one group of people to continue to push their presumed hegemony on morality. However, the group can sometimes do a great deal of harm before they are stopped.

While there are people who are properly defined as “anti-theists”, they hardly compose the majority of atheists, much less “secularists” (which include not only the so-called secular left, but also libertarians and even a surprising number of conservatives). “Secularists” are often just as likely to object to attempts to regulate the religious behavior of people by majorities as they are to impose majority religious considerations on a non-believing minority.

I am not sure why Obama has been saying what he has been saying on this subject. Is it a perceived loss of the high ground by Democrats or is it an actual expression of his beliefs? I am curious about this in particular because, by implication, one of the people he is critical of is his own late mother.

All that being said, he has exhibited a thoughtful approach overall to issues, and he still has my vote for 2006.

Uh, no.

It’s impossible to reason with them because they are unreasonable.

Mostly yes. In Kansas, common law marriages do exist. THey are basically establishing their intent to live as man and wife (sorry ksfarmgrrl-doesn;t cover gay/lesbians at this juncture). That would include such things a declaring themselves man and wife, presenting themselves publiocally as such, cohabitation, etc. I am not sure how it all works, buuth those are basics.

Are they required, for an extra fee, to carry YOUR partner on their insurance?

Then they should be required to carry mine.

What is it about equality that is so hard to understand?

And why do you insist on equality hinging on you privatizing SS? The two are not even remotely related. Benefits can be equal in the current system.

Nice try.

You do raise valid points which are sort of the flip side of my points above. Obviously a couple should be cognizant of both sides.

Ironically, many older couples have extensive pre-nuptual arrangements designed to circumvent many of the things that I listed as reasons to allows ‘unions’. Obviouslt there are many different circumstances.

Now for an interesting question: suppose a couple ONLY get married in a church but never do the civil part? Are they married in the eyes of Caeser?

Intestate succession combined with JTWROS will actually take care of a lot of that – for a married couple. So, againall I would be doing is leveling the playing field for all couples. this is especially true for people with not much in the way of assets – I kick off and my wife gets it.

My point is that ‘married’ gives a real good start in this.

As for SS – either survivor benefits for BOTH or for NEITHER. Again – equal.

And yes – “a church can marry or not” I’m not interested in interfering with the free operation of any church. THAT would be a very inappropriate interference BY the state into the church.

Jeez, I never have heard lying described as a “substantive post.”

Tell me how that works………………….

Grammar……………..

“broad range of knowledge. Something no one”

A comma goes between knowledge and something. Something, in this case, would not be the beginning of a new sentence.

Work on that please and get back to me when you can write.

Just pull blather off the top of that old gray head and put it out there. Always shows your true character.

Regular at least posts things that show he has researched a subject and also that he has a broad range of knowledge. Something no one will ever accuse you of.

Tsk, tsk, Okie-Dope, are you trying to say that you are not a nic switcher and an admitted liar?

Have you enrolled in that grammar class yet, HOG?

The one guy that has been proven to have used at least a dozen nics is accusing others of having multiple nics?

Of course, he is also one of the two admitted liars on this blog and both of them accuse others of lying.

It must be challenging to live in the con world.

As far as carrying your partner on your company benefits that would be a business decision wouldn’t it. Are you saying that businesses should be required to carry your partner on their group insurance?

There really are so many more sides of this question than people want to think. The marriage question is just a small part of it. It open a whole lot of other questions.

Yep Ben. And churches can continue to marry or not marry as they choose.

And as far as SS benefits… how about ALL married folks give up their partner benefits? It addresses the discrimination against single people and gay people.

I mean, cant straight couples take personal responsibility for their partner’s retirement just like gays and singles?