Politics and religion.

[Puckstop31]

John Adams was the weakest of the original leaders no doubt, but he had assistance from many quarters in that, not just from Jefferson.

Again, he was shrill, opinionated, and undiplomatic, which played right into his opponents' hands.

TO rank him below LBJ and the current President, however, is a complete farce.

Reading a great work on the personal lives of some of the founders right now. The more I learn about John Adams... The more I feel a bit sorry for him. He REALLY had a hard time being separated for such a long time from his beloved Abigail. He really did sacrifice for his country. He knew it too...

"Posterity! You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
John Adams

I know I could be EXTRA shrill, opinionated and undiplomatic if I had to be away from Tanya for a long time. But on the other hand, at least his detractors directly engaged him, rather than snipe from a distance with useless tripe.


"Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." This is what it used to be. NOW...

"THEIR lives, THEIR fortunes and 'what does sacred honor mean'?"

[Edwina's Secretary]

Good read Liz. And typically, 238 presidental scholars cannot possible compare to the unbiased...impartial...opinion of our denizen! Too, too funny.

I thought the factors they studied were interesting - not just the usual. Luck was different - although I think I might have rated the four presidents who were assasinated at the bottom for luck!

I am not a Wilson fan either but he was rated nearly bottom for "Willingness to Compromise." I struggle with him rated so high for domestic accomplishments though.

Perhaps I would rate Truman higher and Coolidge lower and Warren Harding and Franklin Pierce I would rate at the very bottom.

But that is quibbling I suppose.

I also like that it stated "Expert's present overall view..." (emphasis added and despite the misplaced apostrophy) -- an important point.

[Lady's Human]

Franklin Pierce I would rate at the very bottom.

There's one we can agree on.

"I almost singlehandedly re-ignited the debates that lead to the Civil War"

Hardly a resume-builder.

[smokey the elder]

Time to inject a religious debate into the stew. There's been a lot of "politics" and not so much "religion". Here's where they may intersect:

In Europe, some countries wish to ban burqas and niqabs because they hide the whole face. Those against the ban say that it infringes on religious (specifically, Muslim) sensibilities. I am for the ban, because the human face is the gold standard right now for recognizing people (that's why there are photos on passports, licenses, etc.) It is needed for security purposes.

I've been thinking about this and other clothing rules in religious dogma for some reason. So where should the line be drawn? There have been other controversies about religious garb/hair rules, especially where they interfere with job safety, etc. For example, orthodox Jews or Sikhs with their beards, and full-face respirators comes to mind.

Not a very coherent statement, but what do you all think?

[Edwina's Secretary]

STE...

Although religion is a protected class under Civil Rights Act - and employers must make reasonable accomodations - safety trumps most everything. Turbans are a problem around machinery but also - for example - the creeper a mechanic uses to get under a vehicle. Any sort of head cover is dangerous around machinery (as are many other things - long hair, long beards, jewelry.) Once you have seen someone "scalped" you understand.

There are some interesting cases about religion and tattoos and employers as well. In certain circumstances - primarily cusomter facing - employers can ban visible tattoos. There are a number of restaurant chains that do this - the California Highway Patrol does - and lately - the Marines have placed restrictions on tattoos. Attempts to claim religious exemption from the visible tattoo ban have not been successful (as long as the rule is consistent.)

I fully support a ban on face cover. It is dangerous - the person with the covered face has limited vision - any place around any moving equipment it can get entangled - and for the safety of others - who is behind it?

For whatever the reason - religion or otherwise - faces should be visible.

[lizbud]

I've been told that actually there is nothing in the Koran that says
women must wear the face coverings. It is custom, rather than Religion.

I believe they should be banned for mainly security reasons, same reason
why we ban face masks in public. (Halloween the exception) I read one
article, pro ban, that mostly stressed the women's "freedom" aspect, but
I think the security reason should trump all others.

PS. smokey, You are referring to the ban proposed in France right?

[Grace]

Turkey, which is a Muslim country, banned the burqa back in 1923. The Government is secular. Women could wear a burqa or hijab at home, but not in public buildings. I'm not sure if it was the daughter of the current Prime Minister or previous one, but she came to the United States for college, because she could not cover her head in Turkey - but she could in California.

In 2008, the law was modified, and I think now that women can wear it or not.

[lizbud]

Time to inject a religious debate into the stew. There's been a lot of "politics" and not so much "religion". Here's where they may intersect:

In Europe, some countries wish to ban burqas and niqabs because they hide the whole face. Those against the ban say that it infringes on religious (specifically, Muslim) sensibilities. I am for the ban, because the human face is the gold standard right now for recognizing people (that's why there are photos on passports, licenses, etc.) It is needed for security purposes.

I've been thinking about this and other clothing rules in religious dogma for some reason. So where should the line be drawn? There have been other controversies about religious garb/hair rules, especially where they interfere with job safety, etc. For example, orthodox Jews or Sikhs with their beards, and full-face respirators comes to mind.

Not a very coherent statement, but what do you all think?

Wondered if you had noticed that France passed the ban in one House
of their Parliement. The vote was 335 to 1 supporting the ban of face
coverings. The law now goes to the Senate where it is thought to pass
also. Although, it should not come up for vote till maybe September.

[lizbud]

I'm glad that cooler heads prevailed. This group will never be taken
seriously unless they tone down the outright HATE within the group.

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_15...nclick_check=1

[Lady's Human]

I don't see the issue. The DNC and their shills did that and worse with the previous administration.

Why is it now hatred, when before it was merely expressing their disagreement with the "regime" in D.C.?