“She started it first” doesn’t cut it, and taking me to task for trying to keep off-topic personal attacks from cluttering my comments sections is wearing pretty thin. If you want to continue to be able to visit here, I expect you to behave, somewhat. I’m not asking for a whole lot.

Feel free to review the Comments Policy on the “About BVBL” page if you’re unclear about what my expectations are.

It never fails to amaze me how many times those who constantly attack, belittle, and call me names other than my own nevertheless whine loudly when I dare to respond in kind.

I’m sure you can debate with Anke regarding the content of her statements. I’ve seen you engage in actual debate rather well, and would rather see that here.

Am I fair? Perhaps not. But in my house, that’s my decision to make. My server, my rules.

You’re quite a selective champion of free speech.

Not to worry, though. I’ve posted the comments over at my site to demonstrate your selectively self-serving commitment to free and open debate.

And your hypocrisy.

Let’s be careful out there. Just remember that although everyone knows you’re capable of defending yourself, such efforts are generally unecessary here.

[Ed note: In process, and if necessary I’ll start blocking IP addresses]

The main site is located at: http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

I found this while searching for the actual date of ratification. It’s REALLY interesting. The main site address is:
http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

On the question of Social Justice, and JR’s biblical references, I think it is important to note that her public policy views are founded on values that are fairly familiar to most voters in the 50th District — the Biblical admonition to all of us to take care of our neighbor. While I don’t dispute the notion that such charitable impulses must come from the heart, that is to say, be voluntary, the policital process and government is the means through which we, as a community, make collective decisions. And, the idea of social justice as an objective for public policy is all around us. Medicare and Medicaid provide medical services to those in need, the public school system provides an education to all, No Child Left Behind, a Bush program, provides extra help for educationally disadvantaged children, Social Security ensures that old age does not mean a life of poverty, and we have many laws to ensure that people are not denied opportunities because of their race, creed, disability, or gender. Perhaps BVBL and his ideological cohorts don’t agree with these programs, but I don’t exactly see Republicans lining up to challenge them.

With regard to the post itself, I believe this quote from Rishell is the most enlightening. She obviously knows little of the history of the founding of this country in saying this. The Constitution of the United States specifically disallowed “progressive taxation,” which was why FDR required an Amendment to institute it during the 2nd World War as a “temporary measure to pay for the War.” The Founders did not consider this concept to be democratic (as opposed to Democratic).

I think your message is that Rishell’s bible reference did not advance her point.

I don’t think her religion is germane to that fact. It may be one explanation for it, but we don’t really need to know WHY she was wrong, we only need to know the facts.

I am very leery of bringing a person’s religion into the discussion, and arguments that sound like “she’s not a (insert religion here) so therefore she can’t understand (insert topic here). It smacks of discrimination, even if unintended.

The best other example I can think of is when Ben said Miller shouldn’t use a “church choir” analogy because he was Jewish and didn’t go to church. I think looking at THAT example, you can more easily see what I’m talking about, and if you go back and read your post with that in mind, I think you’ll see what I’m saying here.

BTW, I don’t think you can say that Rishell doesn’t “believe” in Jesus. I’m not getting into U.U. theology (such as it is), but I think you mean she doesn’t believe he is God sent to die to save us from our sins. I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) she’s said he didn’t exist, or that he didn’t have some good teachings.

So you were they guy bound and determined to corner Bob Fitzsimmonds after the debate and convince him that supporting gay “marriage” was a good idea. I think you failed.

It’s easy to apply the unchristian label to Jeanette Rishell, because she doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. By definition, that means she is not a christian. Now that wouldn’t matter one bit in a political context, as christianity is in no way a requirement for office and is generally immaterial in a political debate. She chose to trot out a bizarre reference to chapter three of Leviticus (I believe that chapter refers to things like burnt offerings required under ancient Jewish law) however and it’s pretty bold for a non-christian to try to use the bible. She obviously does not understand it, and to use it in support of a political agenda which many feel is incompatible with biblical teachings is pretty offensive to may faithful christians. It’s sort of like me using quotes from the Koran in order to convince Muslims that they should behave in a certain way.

I’m glad Jeanette is proud of her faith and is so eager to discuss it. That should cause an interesting and informative debate in this district, and I’m sure the UUA website’s extensive descriptions of policy statements will be of great interest to voters in the 50th district.

Thanks for the great idea.