Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 185
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    In the couple of centuries since written it has been applied to local policies including public school policies. The rule of thumb is if public tax dollars were paid towards it, then the First Amendment applies, INCLUDING letting John the Baptist peeps do their water immersion ceremony in publicy funded parks as is their right of PERSONAL religious expression.
    But, to take the text as it reads, it's quite clear. Taxation was quite common at the time the document was created, so, why was it so clearly left out? The rule of thumb would have to be a temporal view of it's meaning, not the literal meaning.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    If it were my child, they could hold graduation on the moon...I would be there. I would not waste my time, distracting from my child's accomplishments, by arguing the ceremony's venue...
    BINGO!!
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    If it were my child, they could hold graduation on the moon...I would be there. I would not waste my time, distracting from my child's accomplishments, by arguing the ceremony's venue...
    I could always moon your child at graduation too, but then, would I offend Reverend Moon's followers?

    Wait, was someone offended by my Avatar?

    OMFG, did I offend someone named Avatar who had a bad childhood experience?

    Bah. Punches in the face for all the people wearing virtual ******'s and soiled panties over their heads.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    I could always moon your child at graduation too, but then, would I offend Reverend Moon's followers? Wait, was someone offended by my Avatar? OMFG, did I offend someone named Avatar who had a bad childhood experience?
    At least you're an equal opportunity offender, that should count for something?
  5. #85  
    Fly Me To The Moon...

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #86  
    [LISP]You ARE offending little Johnnie. I think we all just need to sit down and use our inside voices.[/LISP]
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    But, to take the text as it reads, it's quite clear. Taxation was quite common at the time the document was created, so, why was it so clearly left out? The rule of thumb would have to be a temporal view of it's meaning, not the literal meaning.
    It's been quite well established in plenty of judicial kicking around.

    Why you are incapable of seeing how this protects EVERYONE'S rights is beyond me.
  8.    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's been quite well established in plenty of judicial kicking around.

    Why you are incapable of seeing how this protects EVERYONE'S rights is beyond me.
    It is more the application of the principle that I think people call into question. For example, the notion that the use of a facility constitutes endorsement of the owners' religion.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Yes there would be some who would object to having it in a mosque....but it is funny to note that it would not be the same people how are so upset that it is in a Christian setting. That was one of the points I was hinting at. Many of the self proclaimed "religious freedom", "religious intolerance", or "Religion-State Seperatist" groups never speak up in the same situation when it is not christians or christianity in question. They are historically very targetted against christianity, almost to the point with with a single eye and purpose.
    I would hope that's not true. Being an atheist, I am an equal opportunity "watch out for others imposing their faith" club.

    I sense this "we are surrounded .. we are being persecuted" complex from the majority Christians .. which I find laughable. They are not under seige. They can practice whatever faith they want in private (non-public) places with like-minded people. Doesn't bother me. No rights are being restricted.


    As for everyone being against the Christian belief .. It goes with being the majority. The incidences where the majority inclinations creep in are more. Thus people who are wary of the religious encroachment raise awareness of such incidences..

    When do you hear of Islamists insisting on Quoran being in public offices? or Hindus insisting on placing an image of Rama on the City Hall on Diwali?

    If they did, I'd pounce on them just as hard.

    As I said .. When in doubt, keep federal, local, state govt. totally separate from religion. Then, by definition, no religious belief will be preferred over another.

    Only belief, faith that I support are those backed up by hard evidence ... in which case, they become facts, not faith (how I dislike that word ...).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's been quite well established in plenty of judicial kicking around.

    Why you are incapable of seeing how this protects EVERYONE'S rights is beyond me.
    So....we're protecting rights by allowing a few over-sensitive fools to yell and scream about a graduation location that was probably used for many graduations before now because we've programmed society to be a bubbling mass of paranoia and hypersensitivity. Blah.

    No ones rights were trampled. Nothing needed protection in this instance.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    So....we're protecting rights by allowing a few over-sensitive fools to yell and scream about a graduation location that was probably used for many graduations before now because we've programmed society to be a bubbling mass of paranoia and hypersensitivity. Blah.
    Basically...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    So....we're protecting rights by allowing a few over-sensitive fools to yell and scream about a graduation location that was probably used for many graduations before now because we've programmed society to be a bubbling mass of paranoia and hypersensitivity. Blah.

    No ones rights were trampled. Nothing needed protection in this instance.
    It's not hypersensitivity. This is not PC run amok. It's a simple principle of the gov't not endorsing religion by having a public school function in a christian church. So it's been done for a few years. It should have never been allowed to start.

    By sticking to these simple principals we allow for everyone's religious liberties. Not just the majority. And this same amendment protects your religious expression rights from being infringed upon. It's a win/win situation.

    And, it's not like we're talking about the only high ground shelter in a flood. It's a graduation ceremony for frells sake.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    Wrong

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Keyword being law. No laws were made and no one was stifled. The actual amendment is quite clear, however, it's obviously been loosely applied and twisted, causing excessive chaffing of peoples panties.
    I do appreciate how you interpret the text of the consitution (seriously ) but here is a quote from Justice Hugo Black on how that part of the constitution has been interpreted.


    Justice Hugo L. Black, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

    The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of [Thomas] Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."


    (IMHO) The implication is this: Laws (statutes and codes are included) were made to create school boards, that power comes from the state. The school boards in some ways are representatives of the state (which are representative of the federal government.) Hence, school boards cant "force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church".
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And, it's not like we're talking about the only high ground shelter in a flood. It's a graduation ceremony for frells sake.
    EXACTLY. I doubt there was any magical God Beam being piped in brainwashing these young skulls with tales of Adam and Eve. Who gives a rats gluteus where it was?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15.    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not hypersensitivity. This is not PC run amok. It's a simple principle of the gov't not endorsing religion by having a public school function in a christian church. So it's been done for a few years. It should have never been allowed to start.

    By sticking to these simple principals we allow for everyone's religious liberties. Not just the majority. And this same amendment protects your religious expression rights from being infringed upon. It's a win/win situation.

    And, it's not like we're talking about the only high ground shelter in a flood. It's a graduation ceremony for frells sake.
    daThomas, you have convinced me on other similar issues. I'm not sold on this yet. The sticking question is: How is the rental of a facility an endorsement of the philosophy of the owner(s)?
  16. #96  
    I'm going to go ahead and tap out of this discussion because I think I have effectively presented my side of the case, as have others, and now I think we're going in circles.

    I will however thank those who did disagree with me yet contributed original thought such as daThomas and t2gungho, not some media poo poo.

    May the [insert unoffending deity/deities here] be with [whatever your view yourself as, to not offend].
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    May the [insert unoffending deity/deities here] be with [whatever your view yourself as, to not offend].
    May the Force be with you.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    daThomas, you have convinced me on other similar issues. I'm not sold on this yet. The sticking question is: How is the rental of a facility an endorsement of the philosophy of the owner(s)?
    This is a church is it not? Complete with crosses, prayers on the walls, various art works reflecting religious beliefs?
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I very much appreciate this example, because it has challenged my "tolerance" levels (which in itself is humorous because I do not consider my self a "tolerant" person, at least not in the way the terms is tossed around these days). The "this is a secular nation we live in" side of me responded that the facilities owned by devil worshippers is subject to the same conditions I expressed for other places. The "not all religions are created equal" side of me said, they can have it there but count me out.

    Then the "greater is he that is in me" side of me said, why?

    Then I realized the relationship between "tolerance" and equality"
    You, the person, are of no greater or lesser value than me.
    Your ideas are of no greater or lesser value than my ideas
    Our behaviors, though, require analysis as to their implications and impact on society in determinig whether they will be tolerated.

    As for holding a graduation ceremony in a "Devil worshipers church", this would in fact offend me....not because it's a religion different from my own, but it's because it's an ANTI-CHRISTIAN religion. If you worship Satan, you by default recognize the Judea-Christian mainstream religion as FACTUAL and then say you choose the evil side. It's directly contradicting what I believe and mocking my beliefs. This is NOT the same as Muslims or Jewish....this is saying Jesus was the Son of God and I'm going to worship the "other team". So no...I would not go to a ceremony there....I would also raise holy hell But if it was at a Muslim or Jewish church, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    I'm going to go ahead and tap out of this discussion because I think I have effectively presented my side of the case, as have others, and now I think we're going in circles.

    I will however thank those who did disagree with me yet contributed original thought such as daThomas and t2gungho, not some media poo poo.

    May the [insert unoffending deity/deities here] be with [whatever your view yourself as, to not offend].
    I hate to see you go away not getting my point as shown by the last comment. Again, it is your ABSOLUTE RIGHT to say "god (or whatever) be with you." On the same token, it is not alright for the gov't to actively endorse your god or someone elses god or the non-existence of god. The gov't should in no way be in any god business OTHER THAN to protect the individual's right to their expresssion of their religious beliefs.

Posting Permissions