quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

That is, except for the neo-con leaders. Read "The Family," a book about conservative group behind the prayer breakfasts and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion policy. It's an eye opener. They are for wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy class, and military domination of the world. Yes, world--and that the world be made to convert to Christianity. A chilling read. [The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlot (2008)]

I have read this book. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same group of people who believe that we should not focus on the misdeeds and transgretions of elected members of "the family" as they are appointed by God, flaws and all, and they are doing God's work as flawed individuals? They claim we shouldn't decide to vote or not vote for them based on affairs, criminal activity, intelligence, accomplishment or any other criteria. The only thing that matters is whether or not the candidate is on board with God's agenda. I think it's the same book, but it might be some other Christian nutter political book that came out recently. I've read so many they all seem to blend together now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Why limit it to the United States vincent?

Of course it has happened, and it is happening, and it can happen here. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou


Well, going back to the op, since this thread is all over the place now.

I've read it now. The parts I don't agree with, are the exclusion for religions, the exclusion for native american tribes, and It seems that at least part of it does not apply to employers under 25 employees, which seems an odd qualifier.

I've read the actual text, and the wikipedia entry. Though reading once, does not make me an expert on it, there may be more I disagree with.


So, I guess if you want to be racist, open a Native American Religious Corporation with under 25 employees, and you can do whatever you want. LOL.

The religious organization exclusion under the Fair Employment Title is pretty specific:

quote:

or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.

Religion is just a belief like any other. I certainly would extend no special protection to religions at all, any more than I would allow, belief in the tooth fairy as being a special case circumstance.


Seems to me this is an attempt to exempt Jewish Congregations for example from being in jeapordy if they refuse to hire a Christian to read from the Torah at each service, or Christian Churches to be free from concern if they refuse to hire Muslims to teach Sunday School.

So what's your problem with that?
 

The Native American exemption from the "employer" definition might have something to do with the recognition of Tribes as seperate Nations under various treaties, but I am not certain about that.

I suppose if they are separate nations, then it would make some sense, except why are we legislating for a separate nation. It is like saying you can't tell your neighbor when to go to bed. Unnecessary. As obviously you aren't going to tell someone else what to do in their house.

Then, enumerating the number of employees might have been an attempt to indemnify small "mom and pop" shops from devastating law suits. I notice that this was a four year lead in starting with excluding shops with 200 employees and working down to the final qualifyer. All seems pretty reasonable to give larger employers time to adjust to the new law and phase it in while in the end defining and excluding small businesses.

Why do you have a problem with that?


The question is why is it okay for employers under 25 employees to discriminate, if indeed discrimination is wrong, it is wrong regardless of size.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I have limited it to the United States for two very good reasons, Sanity:

(a) the OP is about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can provide the name of another country that passed a Civil Rights Act in 1964 it might be valid to consider that country.

(b) The remark made by you "Libertarianism is far more practical than your progressivism / socialism / liberalism / communism in which every thought, action or deed must be submitted to an all-powerful governmental bureaucracy or dictator for approval." and for which I requested examples was made in reply to Musicmystery's comment on Libertarianism which in turn was a reply to a comment by Louve00 about Rand Paul's libertarianism.

Inasmuch as we are discussing an act passed by the United States Congress and a reaction by a Kentucky politician who holds Libertarian views there seems to be no reason to take the issue outside of the United States ...... EXCEPT for the reason that you cannot supply one example in the United States to support your hyperbole and your pride will not permit you to admit it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I'm sure that you used the "United States" qualifier because you know we've yet to try the fanatical far left experiment here, call it what you want, socialism or communism, liberalism gone mad... and so of course I can't point to how its turned into a totalitarian bloodbath here as it has in so many other places.

Yet.

Therefore of course what I wrote isn't in any way hyperbole. Of course its happened, and more than just once (hence your "in the US" qualifier).

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I have limited it to the United States for two very good reasons, Sanity:

(a) the OP is about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can provide the name of another country that passed a Civil Rights Act in 1964 it might be valid to consider that country.

(b) The remark made by you "Libertarianism is far more practical than your progressivism / socialism / liberalism / communism in which every thought, action or deed must be submitted to an all-powerful governmental bureaucracy or dictator for approval." and for which I requested examples was made in reply to Musicmystery's comment on Libertarianism which in turn was a reply to a comment by Louve00 about Rand Paul's libertarianism.

Inasmuch as we are discussing an act passed by the United States Congress and a reaction by a Kentucky politician who holds Libertarian views there seems to be no reason to take the issue outside of the United States ...... EXCEPT for the reason that you cannot supply one example in the United States to support your hyperbole and your pride will not permit you to admit it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Given that we've gone from your misconceptions of libertarianism to misconceptions about liberalism and even conservativism, it's doubtful you understand his political ideology.

He asked you to explain, you dodged. Then the pattern repeats. And repeats. And repeats. And repeats.

quote:

I think it's the same book, but it might be some other Christian nutter political book that came out recently. I've read so many they all seem to blend together now.

quote:

If you can't defeat the message then you attack the messenger. Grow up and debate with some integrity and quit being such an angry mindless old troll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism. Socialists and Communists have hijacked what was once a perfectly good ideology, and now the term 'Liberal' is so ugly and universally hated they've had to begin calling themselves Progressives.

When will they finally admit that their fairy tale fantasies are completely unworkable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Whats laughable is equating today's Liberals with actual Liberalism.

Just out of curiosity--describe what you see as "actual Liberalism."

Today's Liberals, you claim, are socialists/communists. What would actual Liberalism look like? What's its ideology? How does it differ from today?

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Modern Liberalism

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
All that time, and you come up with a link to a talk by a comedian who explains that liberals think America deserved 9/11 so we shouldn't do anything about it, and thus they hate America--hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization.

Seriously.

As I suspected, you have no idea what the word really means. Rush uses it to mean "anything not conservative," a way inaccurate use, as true liberalism would be attacked from the left as well as the right, and not for the reasons today's "conservatives" use. In fact, actual liberalism is very much like what many conservatives posting here claim:

"Liberalism--Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government...In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled...The U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Liberalism--In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice...Apart from the concern with equality of rights and amelioration, liberalism has focused on the space available in which individuals may pursue their own lives, or their own conception of the good. The immediate threat to this ‘space’ was considered to be the arbitrary will of a monarch, leading liberals to consider the proper limits of political power. They explored the relationship between legitimate power and consent, and the characteristics of the rule of law." --Political Dictionary

Here's where they split.

"In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance." --Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

"Conservatives...overlook the dependence of market economies on the (government-enforced) rule of law and the (government-funded) provision of social services...Conservatives...following in the path of Thomas Hobbes, have tried to reduce politics to the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to property [concentrated in the hands of wealthy]." --U.S. History Encyclopedia

In short,

"American political scientist Louis Hartz [in agreement with the Oxford English Dictionary] emphasized the European origin of the word, conceptualizing a liberal as someone who believes in liberty, equality, and capitalism—in opposition to the association that American conservatives have tried to establish between liberalism and centralized government." --from Hartz's book "The liberal tradition in America." (1955)

In fact, the tradition positions are the opposite of what today's conservatives claim:

"Liberalism is attacked from the left as the ideology of free markets, with no defense against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few, and as lacking any analysis of the social and political nature of persons. It is attacked from the right as insufficiently sensitive to the value of settled institutions and customs, or to the need for social structure and constraint in providing the matrix for individual freedoms."

Ironically--it's the conservatives who support strong government and the right of individuals to use it to protect economic exploitation. The points today's conservatives raise are much more liberal.

That is, except for the neo-con leaders. Read "The Family," a book about conservative group behind the prayer breakfasts and the Iraq/Afghanistan invasion policy. It's an eye opener. They are for wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a wealthy class, and military domination of the world. Yes, world--and that the world be made to convert to Christianity. A chilling read. [The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlot (2008)]

The point here, though, is that regarding the origins and meaning of liberalism and it's ideology--you're way off base (and so's your link).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
You're just a troll. He's a liar who can't face the truth about his and your beloved far left ideologies so you throw meaningless qualifiers into the debate and neither of you have either the brains or the honesty required to address that fact intelligently so you resort to your typical lowly personal attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You're just a troll. He's a liar who can't face the truth about his and your beloved far left ideologies so you throw meaningless qualifiers into the debate and neither of you have either the brains or the honesty required to address that fact intelligently so you resort to your typical lowly personal attacks.

If you can't defeat the message then you attack the messenger. Grow up and debate with some integrity and quit being such an angry mindless old troll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Given that we've gone from your misconceptions of libertarianism to misconceptions about liberalism and even conservativism, it's doubtful you understand his political ideology.

He asked you to explain, you dodged. Then the pattern repeats. And repeats. And repeats. And repeats.

quote:

Let's hear about the success and the open free for all and good provided by either libertarian or other far right ideologies. Somewhere, anywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

With all respect Merc you should take a look at the flow of the conversation. The challenge is from me to Sanity to state his righteous political philosophy instead of resorting continually to attacking the negative of others with such an hyberbolic statement that he made.

I will be back later ever anxious for Sanity's answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

With all respect Merc you should take a look at the flow of the conversation. The challenge is from me to Sanity to state his righteous political philosophy instead of resorting continually to attacking the negative of others with such an hyberbolic statement that he made.

I will be back later ever anxious for Sanity's answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I think it's the same book, but it might be some other Christian nutter political book that came out recently. I've read so many they all seem to blend together now.

Ok, I just have to ask. How many books by christian nutters do you read in an average year? Do you know ahead of time that they are nutters and if so why do you bother? Next you will be telling us you never miss the Rush hour on the radio