Hummm, sounds like someone else we know, but I can't quite recall his name.:D
Present company excepted of course.:)
The College that conducted the poll is in NY. Do you know of it?
"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."
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'?"
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.
There's one we can agree on.Quote:
Franklin Pierce I would rate at the very bottom.
"I almost singlehandedly re-ignited the debates that lead to the Civil War"
Hardly a resume-builder.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I'm not a scholar of Islam but I think only "modest dress for both men and women" is stipulated. Interpretation of "modest" is up for grabs!
If folks want to cover their hair, that's fine. Just let us see your face.
Burqa bans are under consideration in both France and Belgium, I believe.
I think people who wish to reside in another country need to assimilate to a point, especially where safety of individuals and society are involved. If there's that much of a conflict, maybe they should not choose to live there.
What about the gal that was going to get stoned? What happened to her?
I wish they'd stop with the religious dress codes, and let woman drive, too!
LOL, I'd like to see how they'd react to the woman's voice on a those map things in cars.
On another religious note, They say the stoneing of a woman in Iran
has been stopped. They say she'll be put to death by other means.
And to think it only took 99 lashs to get her to confess.:mad::rolleyes:
My question - if this woman in Iran truly did commit adultery, she didn't do it alone. So what sort of punishment is her partner, in the so-called crime, receiving?