You are no sort of liberal. Period. The definition of "classical liberal"
A 19 th -century political idea which championed individual rights, civil liberties, and private property., expresses concern for civil liberties, individual rights, something that would be supportive of homosexual marriage, something you obviously are not. [/q2uote]
Clearly, this discussion is over your head. You obviously don't have an inkling of the differences between classical liberalism (the philosophy that was expressed so eloquently in the declaration of independence and made reality in the constitution) and modern liberalism (the philosophy that gave us the soviet union, nazis, fascists, pol pot, and communist china).
Again with a definition that you clearly don't even understand. That definition describes the line of thinking that created the constitution. Tell me, robeth, would you like to live under a strictly constitutional government? I would. I wouild dearly love it and my bet is that it would be hell on earth for you.
I do agree, the constitution does not grant the right of marriage, however, the state does. If one wishes to take the section about depriving liberty, and you refer to liberty as the formula "X is an agent, Y is an obstacle, and Z is an action or state, where X is free to go from Y to do or become Z." (Gerald MacCallum 1967) then the states are decidedly denying what is considered intrinsic between a man and woman wishing to be joined, a liberty if you will, from those based on a sexual preference choice. This is a direct violation of the constitution.
Go try to make that argument in a court of law. Your blatant hypocricy is, however, amusing. The irony drips from your attempt to use the 14th amendment to justify homosexual marriage while at the same time, you support abortion which is a genuine and flagarant violation of the 14th amendment.
You're referring here to "affirmative action" that's not really a "liberal" ideal as per the definition, that itself in my opinion is a racially biased malfeasance that somehow gets flown under the leftwing banner, but itself is not any form of liberalism. If someone can be proven to deny employment based on a race, that should be dealt with severely, in context affirmative action itself is sidestep racism in that qualified individuals may lose out to lesser qualified applicants due to race quotas, which itself violates my premise.
Well, it isn't a classical liberal ideal, but it is squarely among the ideals of modern liberalism. If you really are interested in being a part of this discussion and have any interest in either adding to it, or getting something from it, you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between classical liberalism and modern (or 20th century) liberalism. They are two entirely different philosophies and if you genuinely are against authoritarianism, then you are the victim of a brilliant marketing scheme that began some 70 years ago.
Affirmative action defines the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Simply saying that one can't be denied a thing based on sex, or race, etc. isn't enough for modern liberals. Modern liberalism is based on equality, as opposed to freedom and as such, imposed quotas in an attempt to enforce equality. Since freedom and equality of outcome aren't compatible, the freedom to associate with whom one choses had to give way to enforced equality.
I believe you're getting your words crossed, Humanism is a religion according to Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Humanism by virtue is secular, but secularism itself is not necessarily Humanist and thus you cannot state them to be the same. Secularism can be practiced by a devout religious person, as long as his office/standing does not abide his religious beliefs in its execution. Regardless, the situation involving Humanism as a religion is an odd one itself, as the courts recognize it as a religion for the Free Exercise Clause and at the same time do not recognize it as a religion for the Establishment Clause (think, if christians tried to get humanistic ideals out of schools...then where does that lead, it's a big mess) The courts recognized a person has the right in whatever form to believe in a religion or by definition mashing NOT believe in a religion AS a religion so as to maintain equal and abiding rights between those of pious nature and those who choose to live in logical morality sans religious overtones. See the problem you suffer from palerider is that you're confusing contexts, a secular government itself is not practicing the religion of secular humanism. A school teaching science (which tends to be secular) is not forcing humanism as a religion on its pupils. The context is key.
Secularism is a religion. The fact that a religious person can be a secularist doesn't preclude secularism as a religion as people can have more than one religion. Especially if they aren't really aware that one is a religion. Secularism meets all of the requirements to be a religion and denying that it is as such doesn't change the fact of what it is.
A secular government must, by definition, attempt to eradicate the trancendent from the public sphere. In order to do so, it must favor humanisim over the spiritual and that, my friend, is by definition humanism.
I am not confusing contexts, I understand the subject intimately. You clearly do not which explains your eternal misunderstanding. Your understanding of this subject and, apparently, many others, is limited to dictionary definitions which is the shallowest, and least reliable, form of knowledge, especially when discussing philosophical concepts.
In order to understand a thing, especially when that thing is philosophical in nature, you must look into it rather than at it. From my conversations with you on this and other subjects, it is clear that you don't take the time to look into anything. Your responses are shallow and superficial and don't hint at any actual deep reflection. I would suggest taking some time to learn what it means to look deeply into a concept rather than simply refer to a dictionary as the basis for your knowledge.
