Great libertarian idea provided that the schools aren't government run and funded. But if libertarians have already lost that fight and the schools are government run and government funded telling people to pay for schooling twice is unfair.

I'm not advocating religious rule.

Democracy is not beautiful. It is messy and dangerous. We only put up with it because every other form of government that has every been tried has been even more vulnerable to tyrannical takeover from within. Preventing such tyranny is the point, not providing everyone with a voice. Freedom of Religion is even more important to preventing tyranny.

I can only agree to that if the law is conflicting with religion only for the purpose of protecting another fundamental right. If, to use an example from France, a school has a dress code require no headwear of any kind because they believe it makes for a more respectful atmosphere, then exceptions must be made for people who can show they have real religious objection, whether they be Sikhs, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or certain Christian groups. Otherwise how can you argue that those people who believe God requires them to wear the headgear should remain peaceful? As was said by a guy protecting Jews in WWII (in violation of the law IIRC), I would rather be with God against man than with man against God. If law is superior to one's beliefs than what is superior to law? Should all those Russians who resisted the Communists should be condemned for following their conscience rather than the law. Should all those Germans who resisted the Nazis should likewise be reviled? Is Lech Walesa a horrible person for breaking the law?

A more civilized society would allow dueling as a reaction to such an insult. In other words, instead of being able to immediately punch the person who insulted your mother you could challenge him to a duel (perhaps the law might put limits on the lethality of such a duel) giving the person who was insulted a chance to defend the mother's honor but also giving the insultor a chance to apologize or simply chicken out before any blood is spilled.

It's been said that an armed society is a polite society.

Would you also say the law is above speech? Can the law be above something and that something still be free?
The law can't be above religion without being above speech because freedom of speech and freedom of religion cannot be separated. Without freedom to think and think and believe, how can you have things to say that are different from what the government approves? And without the freedom to communicate your thoughts and believes, people have no way to learn and adopt ways of thinking and believing that are different from that the government approves.

A separate thing to consider - most people's beliefs outweigh their loyalty to country and law. I suspect this is true even with you - if the law required you to kill your mother would you do it? For me, a country that does not allow me to freely practice my religion is not one that I can be loyal to. A country that considers its laws superior to the laws of God is not a country I can be loyal to. Limits on religious practice are allowed not because the law is superior, but because we recognize that even our fundamental rights must be limited in some cases so that they do not destroy other persons' fundamental rights. The right to conduct human sacrifice for an Aztec religion conflicts with the right to life, so one of them must bend. Religion is thus not subject to law, it is subject to respecting the rights of others so that we can have a peaceful society.

Something the Pope and other liberals need to get through their head about speech codes and infringements on religious liberties is that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are inextricably melded. You can't have one without the other. Without the right to think and believe anything you want, you won't be able to say whatever you want. Without Freedom of Religion your statements of what you believe become proof of your religious failings. Without Freedom of Speech no one can learn of or understand anything beyond the officially sanctions beliefs and ways of thinking.

I think you have a point. While for a long time in American history you might expect the authorities to look the other way if someone insulted your mother or wife to your face and you immediately cold-cocked them, I suspect they would have been far less likely to tolerate you traveling miles to initiate a confrontation with said person.

True. Anthropomorphism is always trying to get into trouble and ruin other people's lives.

It's a big issue for a lot of people - but generally the kind of people who work and don't have a lot of spare time to get out and protest. As for "reform", enforcement is a major part of the reform - in fact it is the reform that makes all other reforms possible. But to be comprehensive enforcement has to come first before any other reforms are passed because we know from history and from the behavior of current leaders that a deal won't be honored by those who oppose enforcement. In fact we already did a comprehensive reform that included enforcet ment and amnesty in 1986. We got the amnesty but not the enforcement. Fool me once...

And let's not forget:


7. Which party is for enforcing immigration laws?
8. Which party is for ending corporate welfare?
9. Which party is for limiting the role of the federal government in our personal lives (including when we're working)?
10. Which party is for limiting the rolling back regulations that keep small companies from growing?
11. Which party is for shrinking government spending (and thus giving us more free time so less of our economic output has to be diverted to government functions)?

It should depend on what the first lady is doing. If she does an interview on a topic of substance (like racism) or makes a lot of noise pushing a policy iniative ("Just say no", controlling fat, etc.) then it's fair to make fun of them based on those subjects. Barbara and Laura Bush were both pretty quiet. I don't see how it was fair to make fun of either of them. Are you saying that because SNL did it, it must be ok? SNL made fun of the first lady, so making fun of the first lady is ok, but SNL didn't make fun of the first daughter so making fun of the first daughter isn't ok?

But actually SNL did make fun of first daughters. A quick search of "SNL Jenna Bush" came up with this: http://www.imdb.com/character/...

The way you say "hype" makes it sounds like advertising. I suspect this isn't people saying "let's go see what all the hype is about", it's Americans saying "we're going to reward Sony for releasing the film despite Kim's hissy fit, and we're going to make it clear to Kim that you can't mess with Americans and their right to free speech.

And there is more to come. I haven't seen it yet but I will make sure I see it (legally, not pirated) when I can. I'm sure most of the sales in America are coming from people with the same thought.

Not to mention all the stuff he and his government have done to us and our allies.

No fan of Obama here, but I figure he has a little more access to information about who did this than you or I do. I HOPE he wouldn't retaliate unless he was pretty confident in his intelligence agencies' reports. I have trouble imagining he would retaliate against NK if he was pretty sure China or someone else did it. But I could imagine him needing to if it were required to avoid letting China know how much we know about them.

Given all that NK has done to us and our allies over the years, I don't think we owe them an apology even if they are innocent of this particular crime. We could take down their internet for a couple years and still come nowhere close to making up for all the American, Japanese, and South Koreans they have killed and kidnapped over the years. Or for the thousands and thousands of our fellow humans (North Koreans included) they have killed and tortured.

I don't remember the Bush kids getting attacked (though if they were I would have ignored it unless it came from high-level Democrats). I didn't hear about Obama's family getting attacked except from one low level staffer who merely criticized clothing in a not-very-public forum. But again unless the attacks came from high level Republicans I don't think it is worth much consideration. Chelsea did get some insults that were beneath contempt from some conservative radio personalities, and those radio people were roundly criticized by other conservatives. The only serious insults against family members that I remember are those that were leveled against Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton. With Hillary Clinton I would have to say it was fair game because they talked about a "co-presidency".