But freedom of religion does not create a right to threaten, or an obligation to show disrespect to, the persons who exercise their own revered rights of speech and expression.

Though, I, myself, find some of the resulting depictions of Muhhamed to be offensive, I support the celebration of anyone’s 1st Amendment right to draw a picture of Muhammed as they see fit.

May 20th is Everybody Draw Muhhamed Day. (If I were going to draw him, I would try to make him look strong, handsome, and intelligent.)

That Idea is one that really frightens me, if i look at the time -1k years before untill the Renaissance then i see that there is a large gap since the ancient times, and Madelyn Murry O’hare was right when she said that Columbus could have landed on the moon back in 1492 instead, and that we are not much more advanced (science and society) is due to the negative influence of the christian church(es).
In the US those ID Nuts are pressing for changes in the School system, and people are elected in to office because of their beliefe in christ.
In Europe it is even worse: At last it seamed that Europe had become a more rational place even with countrys like Spain denying the right of the church to tell them what to do, but now we have a lot of imported Islamists which are massivly supported by the left, or at least a bunch of idiots who think that they are the left.
I dont know what you think but i find it deeply disgusting to see a completely covered Woman and her husband in the clothes of Arabia 700Ad.
I see it the same way like i would see a SS-Uniform, its the attire of a dark, inhumane, violent irrational age, but in germany they even keep those who openly talk about the jihad, IMHO they should be sent back home, all of them, and we should take those poor people who are tortured and executed for being homosexual or for the crime of being raped by a group of misogynistic apes.
And its getting better, those dirty far right bastards, who have are gaining support by people who are frightened by islam, and so we (again) have another group of close minded idiots on their way to set the world on fire jet again (Some far right party leader in Hungary used a DNA-Test to “prove” that he is not of jewish or gipsy descent).

Am I to pessimistic?

It should be accessible for a few days here, although may need a login.

A few paragraphs from the piece:

—————————————-

Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.

<snip>

"Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agenda," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it ‘political science.’ "

<snip>

"It boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, the country is still debating the validity of evolution," he said. "This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities."

————————————-

Another reason why I think Bloomberg is a great mayor.

I do have a libertarian streak, that I do generally favor more local control instead of federal control over programs that affect local people. Things like education. Health care. Et cetera. But it’s a pattern worldwide that governments will tend to grow over time, seemingly out of control of any legislative bodies. What would happen if Congress were unable to pass legislation that provides funding for something which is enacted indefinitely, that there is a mandatory time limit on such legislation? Congress would be forced to either pass each part of government it provides funding for, or watch it expire. The point is not to severely limit government specifically, but to control growth, so that the federal government can only grow at a rate that Congress has control over. This would be a variable, not a constant, as Congress gets more or less efficient. But when government services become too complicated, Congress would be forced through limited time and resources to pass legislation to only deal with what they consider to be most important and let the rest fall to the wayside. This does happen from time to time, but as the system currently works, there is so much which is enacted indefinitely that there’s no way Congress can keep up with it all.

Related to that topic, there appears to be a rise in Japanese nationalism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/01/us-china-usa-japan-idUSBRE9400CN20130501

I also think that it exemplifies that their self appointed role is not to attend to matters relevant to governing, but to perpetually attend to political strategies to acquire or maintain their power.

I found this to be a bit of a surprise, but it’s a subject I have never thought intensely about. Makes sense after some reasoning, though. People who rent are simply more free to pick up and move to find better jobs than people who own homes.

I also suspect that this will be highly unpopular in some political circles.

Somehow, no one thinks these marriages might be harmful to children who may come into the marriage or who are born into the marriage, nor does procreation comes into the discussion. Why does the Court—and the people in general—never address this topic but are so quick to argue against same sex marriage?  All of the arguments against same sex marriage could be applied to marriages where one of the participants is a criminal or where procreation betwwen the participants is not possible, but it never is.  Why should the court get involved in the legality of same sex marriage when it doesn’t get involved in the legality of other kinds of marriage, including where there is a real chance of harm to children or the participants?  My question is why the double standard?

There also seems to be a lot of disturbing sentiment for the government to define marriage according to religious principles, despite the establishment clause. Of course those religious principles somehow have nothing to say about criminality.

For the record, I don’t think government should be involved in defining marriage at all, but that’s not the way this government sees it, so we’re stuck with it and with all the asinine contradictions involved in government being involved.

This is a hoot.  A MP of the New Zealand Parliament hilarious speech regarding marriage equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl8oKO7BAuU