Group items tagged

"We surrendered our rights to a government of war criminals, who promised us certainty and security in a world that offers none. We should have known better, and in fact we did. At the literal birth moment of American democracy, Benjamin Franklin summed it up in a single sentence: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.""

As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.

I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks

I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.

Image Courtesy of westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com Amanda Fox-Rouch is currently a student pursuing an undergraduate political science degree at Hunter College in New York City. She is interested in the stories of those who are typically silenced by the selectivity of the mainstream media.

"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin would have probably opposed the parts of this law which the article explains.

"U.S. Supreme Court, in a high-stakes encore to the health care reform law known as Obamacare. The justices will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a dispute involving contraception coverage and religious liberty."

"A full-strength Supreme Court will take the bench Monday for what could be the most consequential term in decades, as the ideologically split justices consider cases as diverse as religious liberty, immigration, cell phone privacy, voting rights and possibly the legality of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban."

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked for a second time that the Supreme Court invalidate Myriad Genetics Inc. 's patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers , the latest salvo in a case with broad consequences for the future of gene-based medicine.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/55391979-79/court-case-myriad-genes.html.csp There has been an update in this case. It seems that the Supreme Court has decided to review this case.

I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D

my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.

In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you

Bain returns as a campaign issue with new Obama TV ad... A tale of two commencement speeches: Obama gives address at Barnard College at 1:10 pm ET, while Romney spoke on Saturday at Liberty University... Team Romney targets deficit and spending... The boo birds: Pa ...

since the public made it so clear SOPA/PIPA would pass over their dead bodies they decided to try something stupider.

man, the government just doesnt get it

OK so it is not being proposed in the USA, but this bill recently introduced in Canada is pretty interesting. Think about the people in our country who protest, but don't want their identity to be shown. Would you support this bill or not?

I think it might be better if you have to register to be part of a protest but to have the list sealed unless things get violent

I think that they should show there faces. Its there choice to go, so then show yourself, dont hide.

no, this is wrong. the government should not be spending so much time tracking us. its fascist. The more we give our liberties away to the government, the more they are going to try and take. with how much peoples personal lives are wrapped up in electronics, it is imperative that we retain our rights. its just a invasion of privacy. either way, with the economy issue i think the last thing we should be wasting money on is recording where the johnson family went for vacation.

This is unethical. I don't want a "1984" by George Orwell to happen

Go to Wikipedia's English home page and it will look like its regular self for a second, but then -   Wikipedia's English-language landing page. Go to Google's homepage, and you'll find its logo blacked out. If you click on the black box in its place (or the link below the search box), you'll be led to an invitation to petition Congress: "End Piracy, Not Liberty."   Google's homepage.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Kansas over the state's refusal to allow residents to vote in state elections without showing proof of citizenship. Under a new law, Kansas requires new voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

American voters haven't elected an unmarried president since 1885, the same year the Washington Monument was dedicated on the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty arrived in New York. Graham is barely registering in the polls.

President George W. Bush was fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything." He used that one-liner often as a purported moral basis to justify the radical restructuring of federal law and the federal assault on personal liberties over which he presided.

While the Western world was watching and grieving over the slaughter in Paris last week, and my colleagues in the media were fomenting a meaningless debate about whether President Obama should have gone to Paris to participate in a televised parade, the feds took advantage of that diversion to reveal even more incursions into our liberties than we had known about.

I don't think that it's right that the government has a right to see our bills, listen to our phone calls, see our emails, etc. I think that if there isn't something that gives them a reason to suspect you they shouldn't be able to go through our stuff. In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous.

This problem won't be faced until the populous takes action and that may take to long for the majority to realize the problem and the violation of privacy.

The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception. The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all.