Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Keith Ellison did bring this upon himself though, because instead of upholding AMERICAN traditions, Re: the swearing in ceremony, he took it upon himself to deliberately cause a fuss about one of the things that are traditionally done in said ceremony.
What utter nonsense. There is no american tradition related to the swering in ceremony. I just read the entire constitution and bill of rights, and guess what? I didn't find God or religion mentioned as a tradition of any sort. What I DID read was the strong need to separate church and state. That topic was discussed in detail - not your incorrect assertion about 'american traditions'. Being uninformed is not a virtue. It is embarrassing for you. I am not trying to be rude. It's just your reasoning is flawed and not backed by our historical documents. I could give my oath on a phone book if I chose to.
Tradition is something that is done year after year, it is not written in stone, but it still IS tradition.
The fact IS it has been done one way througout the years, whether you like it or not, by virtue OF being done this way throughout the years, that MAKES it a tradition.
Ellison knew exactly what he was doing and he should have known better.
On the other hand, Goode should have damn well known better also.
Goode is correct and America will pay dearly for letting a terrorists supporting Islamic take a seat in congress. I feel sorry for the mental retards that voted for him.
Screw CAIR and their terrorist attack plans for America. Wake up, they are part of the planning and command structure that will kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. You trust an Islamic nut, you die.
Go and read Washington's speeches, Tom, and those of Adams and Franklin and Jefferson and.........
I think you get the point. You'll find the Almighty mentioned in several of their writings, along with their commentary of the foundations that they set forth this nation on.
Tradition is something passed on from one generation to the next. That's what makes it a TRADITION instead of a ceremony or a protocol.
The Constitution is a document written regarding law. Religion and personal beliefs are something that lie within the individual, and it was UNDERSTOOD in the time of our founding fathers that there belief in the Divine underlying things (I am a historian btw and spree is doing QUITE well in here presentation of historical references, thank you VERY much). I think, if you'll dig through our archives section, you'll find a piece done a while back where I mentioned something about swearing in on the comic books in which Superman and Batman were introduced, so not only do we do things a bit tongue in cheek around here sometimes, we also make sure that we are well researched and accurate before MOUTHING OFF.
BYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the way, you might want to REREAD that bit about the seperation of church and state, I'd point out exactly which chapter and verse, but know what? That ISN'T IN the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights. What IS said is:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That isn't doesn't say "seperatation of church and state." It means, and meant, that the US won't have a national church, as England did (and does) when the document was written.
Take a course in Constitutional Law sometime in college. It's quite fascinating...
Elected officials are not elected to defend and uphold traditions. They are elected to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws.
Traditions are just traditions. Some are good, some are bad, most are neither good nor bad, but just habits. There are countless traditions that have been abandonded or modified and it is for the good.
You could also argue that Ellison is upholding the tradition in play here. He is swearing on a holy book which is the source of his own spirituality. Just like so many Christians do with their Bible. Almost all swearing in takes place with bibles because almost all elected officials are christians. Swearing in on a book you dont believe in would be meaningless. And the root of the tradition is that one is imbuing the oath with a committment rooted in ones own deepest beliefs and values.
"you might want to REREAD that bit about the seperation of church and state"
Hey, Hawk.
Where should I "REREAD that bit" from?
Is it in the Constitution? No. In the Declaration of Independence? No. Bill of Rights? No.
What am I supposed ot "REREAD"?
Thank you for making my point. There is NOTHING in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, NOR the Declaration calling for the seperation of church and state. That's a misinterpretation of groups like the ACLU in the twentieth century when we became the United States of the Offended...
Article VI of the Constitution states that "no religious test shat ever be required" to hold public office. Therefore, it is completely insane for you guys to state that Ellison should be sworn in with a hand on the Bible. Who gives a $#!+ about "tradition." What you should care about is the Constitution. Until your "traditions" are written into the Constitution, it's none of your business (according to the Constitution) what Ellison's hand is on, whether it's a Bible, a Koran, or a Playboy.
Awww, Ellison is breaking tradition but upholding his morality within the framework of our Constitution. So What! Get over yourselves.
"Tradition is something that is done year after year, it is not written in stone, but it still IS tradition"
And your point is...? Tradition isn't written in stone, but you know what pretty much is? The Constitution. And you know what religious tests the Constitution requires for holding public office? Absolutely none, and it in fact forbids any such tests. So do you know what that means? Ellison doesn't have to put his hand on any Bible, no matter how much you want him to. And no matter how much you want to forbid him from touching the Koran while he is sworn in, you have no place to complain about it unless you also complain about people taking the oath with the Bible.
Traditions mean $#!+ if the Constitution EXPRESSLY FORBIDS their enforcement. So basically, it boils down to the fact that you say he shouldn't use the Koran, while the Constitution says he has every right in the world to. I'm gonna have to side with the Constitution on this one.
Thank you for your comments, and your self censorship of your language...
While I personally don't agree with everything that you have said, your opinions do bear up to being something to consider.
However, if you would be so kind in the future, we would appreciate your identifying yourself when you post here. We like to know with whom we discuss things...
Thank you for being open enough to consider an opposing point of view. However, I feel my previous posts are far less a matter of "opinion" than they are of documented fact. I believe, no, I know, it is an explicit antithesis of Constitutional thought for spree to remind Ellison "that it is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that you were chosen to represent, [and] whether you agree with every tradition or not, you were elected to preserve them." No, spree, Ellison was elected to preserve the Constitution. And it's that same Constitution that tells Ellison that he doesn't, in fact, have to "preserve tradition" by making his oath with Bible in hand. This isn't debatable, as I'm sure it's a rock-solid fact.
And no, spree, I do not agree that Ellison "brought this apon himself", any more than I'd agree that Rosa Parks brought her incarceration apon herself, or Jesus brought his crucifixion apon himself. Ellison's plight was thrust apon him by narrow-minded, constitutionally-ignorant outsiders. I cannot blame a man for refusing to be unconstitutionally coerced into performing a religious rite of passage in order to attain public office. As a true believer in American morals and ideals, I cannot blame a man for that.
If you disagree with me, I'm willing to be persuaded. While I'm sure we all think our own positions are the correct ones, it's always good to hear from others why, in fact, we are completely wrong, and I'm open-minded enough to consider other angles.
Ellison brought this upon himself, he didn't have to swear in on anything, he CHOSE, in a post 9/11 time in history to DELIBERATELY cause a fuss about a simple "picture moment".
Whether the thinking is right or wrong, terrorism as I have shown in MULTIPLE posts, just look for the one called "After 9/11", look at the horrendous acts of terrorism from Islamic extremists, most of them quoting that their interpretation of the Koran is their reasoning for committing such horrible acts and TRY to realize that in this day and age, for Ellison to have NOT known this would create a stir, would make him a stupid man, and I do not believe he is stupid...therefore, in MY mind, he knew full well what this would create by way of public opinion and debate.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree..../after-
911.html
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-
profiling.html
This is the world we live in and yes, when something has been traditionally done one way for so long, who is HE or anyone else to come in and make changes.
You are right, neither of us will change our opinions and that is fine, but I do not see your "opinions" as being facts....simply another set of opinions, as I have.
"when something has been traditionally done one way for so long, who is HE or anyone else to come in and make changes."
So is it fair for me to assume that you will never vote for a presidential candidate if he is anything other than a white male, since it is tradition for our president to be a white male?
Is it also fair for me to assume that you opposed MLK Jr when he called for an end to segregation, since it was tradition for the US to have a segregated society?
It must be fair for me to assume these things, since we all know none of us can pick and choose to which situations we apply our maxims.
"Ellison brought this upon himself, he didn't have to swear in on anything, he CHOSE, in a post 9/11 time in history to DELIBERATELY cause a fuss about a simple "picture moment"."
If you take away Ellison's right to make his unofficial oath with Koran in hand, then you must also take away the rights of Christians to do so with the Bible. Or is it your stance that the United States governement should sponsor certain religions while excluding others? Come on, how unamerican is that? I bet you probably also blame Rosa Parks for CHOOSING to not give up her seat on a bus during a time of hightened racial tensions. Is Rosa a simple "picture moment" for you, too?
"look at the horrendous acts of terrorism from Islamic extremists, most of them quoting that their interpretation of the Koran is their reasoning for committing such horrible acts"
Ellison took an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the Koran. The fact that you don't realize this is frustrating. I repeat, Ellison is in no way professing his will to make the Koran the law of the land, and as long as he upholds his duty to defend the Constitution, it should be no ones business what religion he subscibes to.
"in MY mind, he knew full well what this would create by way of public opinion and debate."
Am I to believe public debate is a bad thing?
"You are right, neither of us will change our opinions"
I never said that.
In your perfect America, I'm sure Muslims would be excluding from practicing their beliefs publicly so as not to frighten or offend anyone. I thank God America isn't that "perfect".
No one EVER said that Ellison should be excluded from practicing his religion, NEVER put words into my mouth or assume, because assumptions are the mother of ALL fuckups.
I specifically said that everyone is entitled to practice their own religion and the "picture" moment has NOTHING to do with practicing his religion. In fact, just the opposite, Islamic law says that things muct be run according to shari'ah law....btw, have you bothered to READ the Koran?
As H so elequently pointed out earlier:
Go and read Washington's speeches, Tom, and those of Adams and Franklin and Jefferson and.........
I think you get the point. You'll find the Almighty mentioned in several of their writings, along with their commentary of the foundations that they set forth this nation on.
Tradition is something passed on from one generation to the next. That's what makes it a TRADITION instead of a ceremony or a protocol.
The Constitution is a document written regarding law. Religion and personal beliefs are something that lie within the individual, and it was UNDERSTOOD in the time of our founding fathers that there belief in the Divine underlying things (I am a historian btw and spree is doing QUITE well in here presentation of historical references, thank you VERY much). I think, if you'll dig through our archives section, you'll find a piece done a while back where I mentioned something about swearing in on the comic books in which Superman and Batman were introduced, so not only do we do things a bit tongue in cheek around here sometimes, we also make sure that we are well researched and accurate before MOUTHING OFF.
BYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the way, you might want to REREAD that bit about the seperation of church and state, I'd point out exactly which chapter and verse, but know what? That ISN'T IN the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights. What IS said is:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That isn't doesn't say "seperatation of church and state." It means, and meant, that the US won't have a national church, as England did (and does) when the document was written.
Take a course in Constitutional Law sometime in college. It's quite fascinating...
------
Perhaps you should take his advice.
I, now am going to eat my christmas dinner. Have a very merry christmas.
"No one EVER said that Ellison should be excluded from practicing his religion"
And I NEVER said anyone did... What I DID say is that you're coming off like Ellison shouldn't be allowed to use the Koran during his ceremony because it would cause a stir. It sounds to me like you'd like to ban Muslims from practicing in public...
You said that he shouldn't be allowed to change "tradition" by using the Koran during his oath. Tell me again why our government should allow Bibles but exclude Korans? That amounts to state-sponsored religion, which is EXACTLY what the 1st
Amendment sought to deter. Either allow it all or ban it all; there can be no in-between (I'd like to get Hawk's POV on this). Perhaps YOU should take that USCL class.
"I specifically said that everyone is entitled to practice their own religion and the "picture" moment has NOTHING to do with practicing his religion."
So you must also agree that when Christians bring the Bible with them to their ceremony, they are also only using it as a "picture moment". But since it's the Bible it's more politically correct and won't offend anyone, right?
BTW, would you vote for a female or black president? Did you support MLK's plight to end segrigation? Or do you think supporting such things would be a slap in the face of "tradition"?
Merry Christmas
You're trying to play the race card on a Jew and a Cherokee/Anglo mix, the owners of this site, and it's not going to fly.
Come off the attack mode or you're done here. What is it that liberals can't discuss things without making a fight about it? What was said, not just by spree, not just by myself, is that there is a tradition in this country of our representatives swearing in on a Bible. As we are at WAR with Islamic fundamentalists right now, to bring a Koran into the mix for being sworn in on smacks, in my mind, of going out of the way to create controversy. spree and I are not the only ones saying this, it's being discussed around the country. Put the race card away, it's a pathetic play at trying to paint someone as being something that they are not.
This is the only warning you get on the attack mode. Be respectful, or you will be gone...
I will go a step further actually. NO ONE should be practicing any religion in public. We have churches, synagogues, mosques, a place for just about everyone to pratice their religion and in their homes.
What IS it about religion where people think it should be practiced "publicly"?
Is it not between you and your particular "God"?
Is there a specific reason people need to pray, loudly, in the middle of an airport? Or maybe in the supermarket, we should see people going to their knees to pray, because the mood struck them? Maybe, in the middle of the next press conference, the president should drop to his knees and proclaim it is a moment for prayer?
I still maintain that in this world where we are at war with a goup of people that are distorting the islamic religion AND the Koran for their violent purposes, simply, basic common sense would have told Ellison that this was NOT the right time to try to bring the Koran out into the forefront.
I established that I do not see Ellison as stupid man, which leaves ONE other options... he did it on purpose and is getting some very deserved criticism for it.
I was able to put politics away for the day and admit that Goode phrased himself very badly and disagree with parts of his letter....amazing that libs and dems cannot put away politics for just a second to admit when one of their OWN screws up too.
If you considered my post a personal attack on anyone I apologize, but is simply wasn't one. My questions were simply meant as tools to debunk certain claims made on this board; I NEVER accused anyone of racism. My questions were intended to counter the claim that "when something has been traditionally done one way for so long, who is (Ellison) or anyone else to come in and make changes". My questions, hopefully, showed that tradition isn't the be-all-end-all, and in certain circumstances change IS needed, or at least acceptable.
"Put the race card away, it's a pathetic play at trying to paint someone as being something that they are not."
Again, I never called anyone a racist. My questions were rhetorical and intended to make a point.
And finally I agree with Spree on something; religion shouldn't be in the public square. Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit if ALL holy books were removed from the swearing-in ceremony. But if you choose to admit one, you must admit them all. It's that simple.
"As we are at WAR with Islamic fundamentalists right now, to bring a Koran into the mix for being sworn in on smacks, in my mind, of going out of the way to create controversy"
and
"I still maintain that in this world where we are at war with a goup of people that are distorting the islamic religion AND the Koran for their violent purposes, simply, basic common sense would have told Ellison that this was NOT the right time to try to bring the Koran out into the forefront."
I disagree. I believe it is the perfect time for a Muslim such as Ellison, a man of presumably sound moral character, to enter the public eye to show America and the world the true embodiment of Islam. Islam NEEDS spokesmen like Ellison. We shouldn't muzzle him.
If more moderate Muslims are going to come out and decry and denounce the fanatics, the time and place to do so is not by choosing to go against the grain of the American people, by and large, at the swearing in of the next Congress.
The time to do so has past; moderate Muslims are late coming to speak out against fanatacism and hatred. Should we ignore them? No, we should embrace them and welcome them to the the fight. We should welcome them to our sides in taking a stand against evil. Jews and Muslims stood side by side to commemerate the Holocause recently, both avowing what spree and I have said so many times in these postings: "Never Again."
I don't know why the majority of Islam has remained silent until now. I can only speculate that they, as individuals, have not wanted to have the label of "infidel" placed upon them.
Enough is enough.
Those of you with a backbone, those of you with the intestinal fortitude to take a stand, make your voice be heard.
The time to stop evil is when you see it.
It is Christmas so I will save the Ellison being good for anything issue for my next actual post, pointing out his connections to CAIR, and CAIR's PROVEN connections to what???? you got it...TERRORISM and terrorists orginizations.
But the point here is the Bible isn't being ADDED into the ceremony...it hasbeen there for DECADES, it is Ellison trying to "add" something that was not there before.
Your point about "tradition" in regards to electing a president, one could always say the "tradition" has NOT been about electing white males, but the "tradition" has been to vote for someone whom we believe best represents us.... it just so happens that as of yet, those have been white males.
Your premise was flawed in the "assumption" that the tradition was the white male and not OUR collective opinions on who and what represented us better.
Each of your so called stated "traditions" are just as easily debunked.
Again, Ellison is trying to "add" instead of maintain something that has worked and been done traditionally.
Now, I am going to enjoy he rest of my Christmas, you have a very nice one and feel free to come back tomorrow where I will connect the terror dots in a clearcut, FACTUALLY based post with names, dates, sources.....
A final point: There have been assumptions made here that Ellison is doing what he is doing simply to "create controversy". Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I'm not inside his head. But if he is, why would he do such a thing? What does he have to gain?
On the other hand, if Ellison proves himself to be as good a Representative as the people of Minnesota think he will be, it can only help build bridges between the Muslim community and the rest of America. Isn't this a good thing? We shouldn't squelch decent Muslim leaders.
The same thing the Imams hoped to gain... a gradual erosion of our beliefs and our stance against terror and watching for possible terrorists acts, as to open the door for more Islamic extremists to come and kill us.
I am not naive enough to think that Ellison dod not know exactly what he was doing and exactly what purpose he was trying to achieve.
You may consider him a "decent" Muslim leader... but one hangs out and speaks at functions for orginizations like CAIR, who have KNOWN ties to terrorists...then do not be surprised if you are painted by the same brush.
That, as I pointed out, will be post tomorrow. All the known, proven ties to terrorism with CAIR, then factual ties from Ellison TO CAIR.
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, it MIGHT just be a freaking duck after all.
If he's trying to build bridges, he's off to a bad start. He's already given several of us a bad taste in the mouth when he's mentioned, curses at the utterance of his name, so forth and so on. Is this the road to building bridges? Or is it the road to burning bridges?
Time will tell, as they say, what the full aftermath of this will be. He may have his heart in the right place in what he intends. However, as I've said, many of us out here in the vast majority (the silent majority, if you will) already eye him with distrust.
Personally, I'm willing to watch him and see what kind of record he establishes for himself. I don't know that the rest of the country is as patient, or forgiving, as I am.
"Those of you with a backbone, those of you with the intestinal fortitude to take a stand, make your voice be heard."
It's possible that that is exactly what Ellison is doing.
"Your premise was flawed in the "assumption" that the tradition was the white male and not OUR collective opinions on who and what represented us better"
Then your premise is also flawed when you make the assumption that it is tradition to use only the Bible, Torah, or Book of Morman during swearing-in ceremonies. The ACTUAL tradition is most likely to use the elected representative's holy book during the ceremony, and the only reason the Koran wasn't used sooner is because no Muslims have been elected until now.
Let me ask you a hypothetical- If a Muslim was elected in the 1870's, would you no longer oppose Ellison's use of the Koran?
" The same thing the Imams hoped to gain... a gradual erosion of our beliefs and our stance against terror and watching for possible terrorists acts, as to open the door for more Islamic extremists to come and kill us."
I can't believe you're already basically saying Ellison has terrorist motives. It's no longer worth the debate. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
As I said... this is christmas and I am heading to enjoy the rest of it. Tommorow will be the piece on this man you so wish to defend.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_...yfp-t-501&
x=wrt
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p...op=mss&ei=UTF-
8
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=13175
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=24619
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei...on_(politician)
Read up on this man, and his ties to CAIR and CAIR's ties to terror.
Then address the issue of Ellisons OWN Campaign finance violations:
Campaign finance has also been an issue for Ellison. In early 2006, the Minnesota State Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board reprimanded Ellison for unreported contributions, discrepancies in cash balances, and misclassified disbursements. These transgressions occurred in the years 2002-2004. In 2005 when the board tried to get more information about the problems in Ellison's reports, they got no response from Ellison or his treasurer (his wife Kim). When the board heard nothing, they opened the investigation. Ellison was subpoenaed and fined.[71][72] The board has also fined Ellison numerous times for late filings,[73] been sued twice by the attorney general, and has been warned many times for absent or incomplete disclosure.
Try reading up on Ellison, I certainly did before writing MY piece.
Tomorrows will be a FULL accounting of Ellison and his "public" association with CAIR, such as speaking at their events and so on...this is all public record.
Again, I'm not trying to defend Ellison, I'm trying to defend his right to use the Koran during his unofficial ceremony. I'm defending Constitutional values.
You do know what happens when you make assumptions...
"Try reading up on Ellison, I certainly did before writing MY piece."
By "MY", are you trying to make it look like I've also written a piece on Ellison? I haven't. You have me confused with someone else.
There is a certain amount of good judgement and common sense that has to be taken into account as well. I am the first and foremost in defending the Constitution. That being said, as I pointed out earlier, there is a time and place for everything.
Just because Ellison has the RIGHT to use the Koran, SHOULD he do so? Especially if he sees, and I'm sure that he HAS seen, the negative light that it places him in with a large percentage of the populace. It calls to question the man's reasonability, his common sense, and his motivations for this decision.
Virgil explicitly states that he would not bar Ellison from using the koran:
Rush Limbaugh Show
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
home...pe_2.guest.html
"RUSH: Final question from David Asman. "Would you prohibit, Mr. Ellison -- would you prohibit him from bringing a Koran into that ceremony?"
GOODE: If the voters of that district want persons that are going to swear by the Koran, that's the choice of the voters of that district, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible if a book is used, and that is exactly what I'm going to do.
ASMAN: Well, that I may well be true, but again just to put a fine point on it: You are not, then, for prohibiting Mr. Ellison from bringing in a Koran?
GOODE: No, but I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives. "
A cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is the best way to approach Virgil Goode's sole policy proposal, which is a halt to muslim immigration.
Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, and US muslims wouldn't feel *quite* so hated as a complete ban would make them feel, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses (they are highly educated) than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate.
"There is a certain amount of good judgement and common sense that has to be taken into account as well. I am the first and foremost in defending the Constitution. That being said, as I pointed out earlier, there is a time and place for everything."
I pretty much completely agree.
"Just because Ellison has the RIGHT to use the Koran, SHOULD he do so? Especially if he sees, and I'm sure that he HAS seen, the negative light that it places him in with a large percentage of the populace."
When a man is pondering a difficult decision, I don't think that man should concern himself with what the public will think of him based on his choice. He should instead do what he thinks is "right". I truly believe that Ellison is doing what he thinks (and I think) is "right" by upholding the American tradition of our elected leaders being sworn in with their holy book in hand. I mean, how often have you wished our leaders would more often make decisions without considering the political leverage each decision will lend them or take away from them? Ellison's move certainly isn't a vote grab; as you said he's probably turned off a large percentage of the populace with this controversy. He's doing it believes it's "right", and that's commendable. This is the point I was trying to make with the MLK reference. His actions certainly villified him within a large portion of the population, but America is a better place because he chose not to back down. Whether Ellison's actions will make America a better place is unlikely in any kind of emperical sense, but I certainly think it makes America spiritually stronger by upholding our Constitution's ideals. On the other hand, I don't really see his choice to bring the Koran with him to his ceremony as potentially harmful to America emperically or spiritually.
The fact that we can at least agree that no one can take away his right to do as he is doing (outside of ammending the Constitution) and no one but himself can make this decision for him is enough for me. I can live with the fact that you view the "SHOULD he/SHOULDN'T he" debate differently than I do.
Commenting by HaloScan
