Slashdot Mirror

Question: With religious diversity increasing, what are your thoughts on the protection of religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Should religions like Wicca be banned from recognition by the military, as some legislators suggest? Submitted from Amber of San Diego, California through Yahoo! (10/15/00)

Answer: Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity. Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.

In case you didn't read the other posts, check out http://www.webwhite blu e.org/debate/2000-10-15/bush/question/ to see where he says he doesn't believe it is a religion. It's basically the same answer, though.

Sure, it's most likely script written, but I'm glad that so many people answered the questions. Sure, if I were American, I still would never vote for Bush, but I'm glad he has the guts to have his views answered like that. Of course, as usual, he completely ignored topics that I wish he would get into... For example, for religions, he gave the exact same answers (and wording) to Web White and Blue's question about religion, except he didn't put in the Wicca part... (that's a bad thing, considering it was half the question). Anyway, thanks Slashdot for letting me read them!

Oh, and I'm ticked off about Bush' answer to the Seattle protests. **rightwinggrumblegrumble**

Check out the response to a similar question at Web White & Blue.

His response there?

Religious Freedom And Tolerance Is A Protected Right
I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.

Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion. I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.

(emphasis added)

What's funny is that allowing Wiccans in the military to practice is promoting witchcraft... but allowing Christians to practice isn't an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity.

Regardless, if he's going to arbitrarily decide something doesn't count as a religion, and therefore doesn't deserve 1st Amendment protection, then he's not truly in favor of religious freedom and diversity.
---

Al gore:

Striking A Balance On Encryption
Between Privacy Interests and National Security

I believe that the best encryption policy is one that balances our commercial and privacy interests with national security and law enforcement concerns.

The current Administration has worked hard to achieve that balance -- a balanced encryption policy that increases privacy and security for families and businesses, while addressing the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement. This year, for instance, the Administration has allowed U.S. companies to export strong encryption to Europe and other major allies without a license, a move that was praised by the computer industry.

Under our policy, any widely available encryption product can also be exported to anyone except the seven state supporters of terrorism. I believe that technologies like encryption are now more important than ever to our economy and to electronic commerce.

As president, I will support encryption policies that allow companies to compete internationally, while also protecting our vital national security interests.

Bush

Protecting Privacy

I believe that strong encryption products enhance consumer privacy.

In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system -- including encryption export laws -- to allow companies to export products when those products are already readily available in foreign or mass markets, while building high walls around technologies of the highest sensitivity. The current system needlessly penalizes U.S. businesses while failing to strengthen our national security.

Strong encryption products are an important tool that gives Americans absolute control over his or her personal information. I believe that it is especially important to protect highly sensitive medical, genetic, and financial information.

I share many people's concerns that, with the advent of the Internet, personal privacy is increasingly at risk, and I am committed to protecting personal privacy for everyone. Though industry now appears to be making some efforts to meet consumer demands for privacy protection, as President I will ensure:

Notice and Consent. Everyone has the right to know what information is collected and how it will be used, and to accept or decline the collection or dissemination of this information - particularly financial and medical information.
Access. Individuals have the right to correct any inaccurate personal information.

Security. Institutions must provide sufficient security to prevent unauthorized access to personal information.

The Clinton Administration has repeatedly been slow to recognize the realities of the international market for encryption products regulated by our nation's export laws. Rather than act in a timely way to keep export limits in line with technology available from foreign sources, the Administration has threatened exporters with outdated rules blocking sales of widely available commercial technology.

In addition, unlike Gore's "reinvented" government which has failed to protect the personal information of Americans, my own Web site sets a high privacy standard. The August 17, 2000 Los Angeles Times "E-Review" examines the two major campaigns' Web sites and concludes, "If the presidential election were based on Internet sites, E-Review would give the edge to Texas Gov. George W. Bush." At GeorgeWBush.com, "visitors still must opt in to be included on Bush's mailing lists. E-commerce sites that profess to care about protecting their customers' privacy would do well to follow this lead."

--

--

You know, major candidates don't like to answer people's questions today. They only like to run ads on television.

A Green Party activist, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

Of course, Ralph Nader would rather hold rallies with his celebrity friends than answer questions. I don't see his replies up here, and he hasn't exactly been willing to take any questions from non-partisan sources. He continues to complain about being excluded from the debates, yet has repeatedly refused online, multi-candidate interviews such as this one, Web, White and Blue, and many others. (Even the major parties are participating in these forums.)
It's time that the liberal and progressive in our society looked beyond the hype, and began to realize that Nader doesn't have our best interests at heart.
--

What is it about the Reform and Green parties that earns them better-than-typical-3rd-party status at sites like issues2000.org and webwhiteblue.org? More and more I am seeing these candidates presented as "real" candidates in web forums while other 3rd parties are left in the "other" column. (Of course, they're all ignored by mainstream media.) What's the deal? Why not equal treatment for all?

I'm not trying to troll, here. If someone could explain why Buchanan and Nader have such (media) appeal, I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to know. Maybe I've overlooked something.