Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
133
Fri, 10-31-2008 - 9:15pm
Friday Oct. 31, 2008 13:38 EDT

Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment

(updated below - Update II - Update III)


Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/


Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:11pm

I'm trying to understand...


Did you mean that the Native American tribes' Freedom of Religion was not interfered with?


And the evidence of that is that they sell items to tourists that replicate religious artifacts?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:12pm

>>> Right, and thus it reflected a flaw (slavery) in the society. Oh, that is what Obama said, so I guess you agree with him after all.

Slavery isn't a "flaw" in society.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:15pm


>>> OT, but...WHAT? Please explain.


What would you like clarified?





The following statement, which I had already pasted in my post:

And I don't know what the crusades have to do with colonial America, but even in the 12th century, they weren't being used to promote Christianity. Thanks for playing...NEXT!


I read this to mean that the Crusades were not used to promote Christianity.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm


Crusades

tt=84


Image The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.


my4lovies2aug4.jpg picture by LadyCaribou


Thank you, nicole_ftm for my siggy!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:18pm

>>> You could claim harrassment, intimidation, a number of other laws and issues, but to claim that people who are making someone feel intimidated about their opinions and speech is to display a lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights.

True, in explicit terms, but most Americans view the First Amendment as having broader protections...even from other citizens or institutions. Palin presents an arguable point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:21pm

True, in explicit terms, but most Americans view the First Amendment as having broader protections...even from other citizens or institutions. Palin presents an arguable point.


It would be so refreshing if you could just acknowledge that Palin misspoke or misinterpreted the Constitution.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:22pm
OK, that was funny.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:23pm

>>> I'm trying to understand... Did you mean that the Native American tribes' Freedom of Religion was not interfered with?

That question is too broad. Obviously, like most religions, it has experienced intolerance at some times and in some places.

>>> And the evidence of that is that they sell items to tourists that replicate religious artifacts?

No, the evidence of their exploitation of their religious practices is evidence that they weren't prohibited from practicing or displaying their "religion" prior to 1978...as another ill-informed member has alleged.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:24pm
What is it then?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:25pm

It's even faster when they are on ignore.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:27pm

< And I don't know what the crusades have to do with colonial America, but even in the 12th century, they weren't being used to promote Christianity. Thanks for playing...NEXT!

>>> I read this to mean that the Crusades were not used to promote Christianity.

Right...the crusades were not missionaries, they were soldiers send to wrest holy sites from infidel hands.

Pages