Nicely put, Ken.

The Democrats are responsible for raping the Social Security fund, which was protected until they joined it with the general fund. The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Democrats were responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Well, if you research which congressmen have cordial relations with Fidel Castro, you will discover that most of them are democrats. Now pt whatever label you like on it, the system in Cuba is clearly and completely totalitarian, which does not bother the businessmen and congressmen who want to normalize relations with Castro's regime to improve their incomes. I think that whoever approves of this is despicable, whatever his party affiliation. It just so happens that most of those who approve are democrats. So is fascism worse than totalitarianism., or are they just two points near the same end of the same continuum? Then look at China and the barbaric practices that seem to be overlooked by republicans and democrats alike, and explain to me in what way the parties are essentially different, while the majority agree to extend preferred-trading-partner status to the regime responsible for millions of deaths of innocent people.

I cannot believe that anyone could be so senseless as to claim that riving under the influence is a right.

As a comment to another quote, Joe wrote "Driving is not a right, but an entitlement." while here he wrote "A right is a privilege to which one is justly entitled." Maybe I am just stupid, but it seems to me that Joe is saying both that A does not equal B, and that A does equal B.

Excuse me, but if the remark Archer refers to defines me as a socialist, then capitalism must then be the system that approves extermination of the poor through monopolization of land and capital. I am not a socialist and capitalism is not that system. Benjamin Franklin must have been a socialist by Archer's standard, as he did not apporve unbridled monopolization. And it only makes sense that the right of people to subsist is inextricably connected to their right to eat, which presupposes availabilty of arable land on which to produce crops. It has little to do with twisted ideology, but everything to do with physical reality.

There never has existed complete freedom to express anything at all. There are just laws that prohibit certain types of expression, or which limit them. How would you like to wake up to find a cross burning on your lawn? Or a group of extremists picketing your home because they don't like your religion? Or how would you like to be subjected to slander on a daily basis? Or how about having your boss try to convince you to go to bed with him or her five times a week? Or how about a waiter or waitress that has to listen to racial slurs from the cusomers? Or how about someone who intentionally harasses you whenever possible? There are certainly reasonable limitations on freedom of expression.

Debatable applications are likely to occur, but debate is always inevitable. They are apparently aiming to err on the side of caution and respect.

The hypothetical "civilized man" always would do so.

The same man said, in connection with his contributions to the development of nuclear warfare, that if he had known the consequences of his contributions, he would better have become a locksmith.

Er...I don't know...

The school board is elected by the voters, a great many of who are the parents that oppose the board. Who are the individuals and who the power structure? It is not a clearly defined distinction, and not comparable to what Justice Douglas comprehended in his quote. The group of parents, having formed a coalition against the school board, have become an association, or a power group, and must be considered as such. The school board, each member representing a separate district within the larger school district, collaborate as a commission, but are also at odds with one another on various issues. Each is vulnerable to the will of the community that opposes them, and each is accountable in case the community wishes to replace or impeach them. Altogether they are nine individuals, while the association that opposes them number many more. Perhaps, as you say, I am missing the point, but I would say that the case is not so clear that it harmonizes well with the meaning of the quote. In any case, the quote refers to the individual in opposition to the power structure, while I see here a power group in opposition to a commission of limited authority, susceptible to the common will. I am not trying to complicate this; I just see it this way.

Jack: I was responding to a comment you made above, for reasons that are probably clear enough. The point of the quote and the point of your comment may be two different ones. In any case, abortion is not a right.

A fetus that can live outside the woman, without any support from her, is not part of her body. That is obvious. If it were not obvious, your mother would still have the right to abort you. If we are going to accept that a woman can kill a viable fetus, an independently living being, then any mother can kill any of her children, at any age.

Who says what, Jack? You left no specific indication of to what your question refers. Premature babies very often survive to adulthood, especially those born in the seventh month, which is the most usual time for premature birth to take place. But even earlier births result in viable babies born. So what is the difference between aborting a fifth-month fetus or killing a fifth-month baby? None. And what is the difference between removing a fetus from the womb to suck out its brain and removing you from your rocker to suck out your brain? None. A baby out of the womb is as much a person as Jack out of the womb. Partial-birth abortion is murder.

I think the quote is unclear, poorly defining freedom.

It is not that only atheists do not want religious indoctrination in schools; but those who force indoctrination of unproven scientific doctrine on students tend to reject God out of hand. It is an irony that they wish to impose a myth with which they have extremely limited personal experience, that is, scientific theory, in place of what is to them an absurd concept, that is, Creation, when no one is forcing them to believe in God. Their negative reaction to God has to do with their negative experiences with people, as though people were adequate representatives of God. The strangest part is that they believe in so many absurd things, while rejecting the most sublime thing, which they really never tried to appreciate or understand. It does not matter whether one is an atheist or just opposes God for the sake of opposition; the effect is often similar. The world is what it is because men reject God. And the Bible also says, if Archer will permit me to refer to it, that the devil believes in God, and trembles. I do not know with certainty whether freedom of the mind requires the absence of legal restraints. An interesting growth in opposition to tyranny is taking place in Cuba, more each year that passes, despite totalitarian restraints on information. Maybe freedom of the mind is inevitable, if slow to develop.

I often wear a ballcap on which are the American flag and the words "one Nation Under God". Atheists have had no trouble expressing themselves openly to me.

Mike seems to have a point there, Reston, ol' buddy. The radical atheists are forcing their doctrines down our children's throats every day in the schools. And the history books certainly sometimes seem like fiction. I cannot remember once being told by a teacher that God created the universe, or that I should pray.

Hmmm...OK, Joe, but that seems to be a fear-based wish, rather than one of desire. Aren't those who feel this to be pitied? Truth does not change to suit the majority. But the fear-based attempt to fit in, or to appear to fit in, is pathetic.

Perhaps this was once true, though lately I do not think so. Of course, many there are who would like us to believe it.

So, Joe, would you also say that adult men should be free to have relations with little boys and girls? That is what it sounds like from what you wrote: "true freedom is the ability to do whatever you please." The authority to to anything at all? That belongs to no one.

I get the point, but it is still a partial falacy. People too often think that they could be happy by achieving or obtaining. Mankind could only be satisfied and contented by living the way they were designed to live by the Creator. It takes some people a lot longer to realize this, and some never do.

Choice rests with the individual, who chooses, good or bad. What some individuals produce is good. Others produce bad. Individuality is always to be preserved, and respected whenever it produces good; whenever it produces bad, it is to be rebuked, instructed, corrected, prevented, or otherwise dealt with, according to the severity and circumstances.

The positive and cordial effort to understand another's beliefs, practices, and habits, without necessarily sharing or accepting them, is one aspect of tolerance.