Log Out
Visit Quantum's column >>

QUANTUM

Avid physicist, philosopher and politician.
Articles Posted: 4  Links Seeded: 6
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 12/28/2009

Too Much Is at Stake to Risk Placing Samuel Alito on Supreme Court

Seeded on Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:21 AM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: rcrc.org
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Seeded by Quantum
Advertise | AdChoices

Relgious groups have used the Alito case, to once again affirm their views about abortion. One of these organization is the RCRC (Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice)

Citing the long-standing national consensus supporting the right of women to make reproductive decisions, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) urges the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Aspects of Judge Alito's record on reproductive rights show a radical legal philosophy that would reverse and overthrow basic guarantees that have been essential to women's progress over the past 30 years. In a nation that affirms freedom, equality, and dignity, Judge Alito holds legal views that are directly counter to our country's highest aspirations.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Full Throttle

Not a chance, Alito will be confirmed despite the bloviating and bluster of Schummer and Kennedy.

    Reply#1 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:02 AM EST
    Velcro Van

    Great "news" story here

      Reply#2 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:51 AM EST
      Quantum

      Thanks,

      The question is though, are religions taking advantage of a situation they have no say in? I truely think that religious groups should have no say in personal matters, this goes for politicians to.

      Quantum

        Reply#3 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:04 PM EST
        Velcro Van

        I have only four points.

        1. "Religions" are not involved here, only an isolated group that identifies itself as religious. A "religion" is a system of beliefs and values.
        2. They aren't "taking advantage" of anything, merely stating their opinion on a public issue.
        3. This group, like everyone else in America, does have a "say" in matters of opinion.
        4. Religious groups in America don't have any "say" in "personal matters" except to the extent that individuals choose to follow their principles for their own benefit.
        5. Politicians in America do have a say in "personal matters" where they intersect with laws enacted for the public good — this is influence is variously known as "legislating" and "enforcing laws."

        I think that clears up everything, except for your signature and your initial "Thanks," for which I say:

        1. "You're welcome. — JD"
          Reply#4 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:46 PM EST
          Velcro Van

          er, "four points" for extremely large values of "four"

            Reply#5 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:51 PM EST
            Quantum

            I'll try not to get into an argument here, but I feel I have to answer your points.

            1. Firstly the RCRC is a religious group as stated in my first post, I used to term "religion" as a generalisation of religious fueled groups in the modern age.

            2. I feel differently, although I do agree with the RCRC's line of view, I understand they are using their opinion to "argue" to the reader that their argument is right. They have seen a situation of which America seems to care about and used it to pull in followers of their beleifs.

            3. I agree

            4. I don't beleive that the RCRC force their opinions on people however, I would go as far to say that "certain religious groups" make their say on personal matters in such a way that followers of the afith have to agree. Furthermore, I understand that certain groups force religion on children without the child's personal say.

            5. What I'm about to say may sound idealistic but here we go. Politicians aren't their to enforce their own views they are there to take actions on the country's opinions, issues of "personal matter" should come down to what individuals ofthe whole think about the matter.

            I know I sound cynical, thanks for you input on an interesting subject.

            Yours Quantum,

              Reply#6 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:23 PM EST
              Dan Sampson

              4. That is why you choose that faith isn't it? If I want to be apart of something, I have to agree to it don't I?

                Reply#7 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:38 PM EST
                Velcro Van
                1. Thank you for the explanation. You can use the word how you like, but people will misunderstand you if you try to put new meanings into it.
                2. The RCRC is not making anything resembling an argument here, since they offer none of the facts, principles, or reasoning that might support their various premises, and make no attempt to persuade anyone by logic; all that is offered is a statement on their position regarding a single issue.

                  Religious organizations are allowed to argue in favour of their own beliefs and to publicly attempt to persuade people of the truth and/or value of their religious principles, and there is nothing shady at all about it, it is known as "religious freedom" and "free speech".

                3. No matter what any religious group in America does to "make their say," nobody has to agree with them. Also, children are given many things before they reach a state of intellectual maturity and social independance to be able to choose the course that seems best to them, and at that point they are no longer children. Everything that happens to a boy in public school, for example, is (according to your reasoning) "forced" on him "without his personal say." Parents are free in America to raise their children according to their own system of values.
                4. Politicians in America make public statements about their values and positions, and if elected, they have a mandate to be faithful to the positions they endorsed before the elections. If they publicly state what their philosophy is, and are elected by a majority of their constituents, then the majority has endorsed them to represent them in government as best as they see fit. This is called a "democratic republic."

                This is an interesting discussion. I realize that English is probably not your first language, so that's fine.

                  Reply#8 - Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:03 PM EST
                  Leave a Comment:
                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.