Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 566
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Actually according to the federal government the holiday from work is to be 26th. Clearly showing that it is not a strict "Christmas" day off, but simply a day off work. It seems like we're arguing the wrong sides here, but if you want I'll accept your point and say that the Govt should officially change the day off to "Winter Holiday" rather than saying "Christmas Holiday"
    This year it is the 26th, so we all get 3 days off. Don't change the name, it still means the same thing, the day off is to celebrate the birth of Christ.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Again, the point is NOT being required to or if they feel coerced to. The point is a gov't institution endorsing deist religious beliefs. AND if I may add, in a manner which completely does not require it (pledging allegiance to one's country).
    The judge said it is coersive. That is exactly the point.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    But it also infringes on my rights by stating that we are one nation under "god", thereby acknowledging the existence of a "god" which is contrary to my theological beliefs. The government can not support a theological belief system in such a blatant way that is 100% contradictory to my own.
    While I support your premise, I'm intrigued with your rationale. If you don't mind, I'd like to explore this tangent:

    What is the difference between "god" and "creator"?
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    So would you support religious marijuana use by Rastafarians?


    I understand that, religious intolerance isnt the only difference between Communism and the Capitalist Democratic Republic we have here in the US though. It wouldnt even make my "top 5 differences" list, that may just be me though.
    I agree it is not in the top 5-10 or 15
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    While I support your premise, I'm intrigued with your rationale. If you don't mind, I'd like to explore this tangent:

    What is the difference between "god" and "creator"?

    For me? None. Both imply consciousness intent.

    If
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by MVT
    What are non-citizens doing in our public schools? Ah....another can of worms.
    No, there are legit non-citizens in our schools as well as individuals with dual citizenship.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The judge said it is coersive. That is exactly the point.

    It is coercive for children. Schools are institutions of learning. We expect small children to adopt behaviors tolerated by that institution.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is coercive for children. Schools are institutions of learning. We expect small children to adopt behaviors tolerated by that institution.
    If it was mandated, and as insertion said, they know more about oscar meyer than religion at that age.
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    No, there are legit non-citizens in our schools as well as individuals with dual citizenship.
    If they are living in the "Land of Milk and Honey," enjoying the freedom and protections afforded to them by their presence, including free education, I see nothing wrong with asking them to pledge allegiance to the nation that affords them that luxury.
    1. HTC Touch Dual Neon 300, Stock Rom
    2. AT&T Tilt (Refurb) with DK.8 Rom (collecting dust)
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Length of time does not make something constitutional. Need I point out how long separate but equal went on?
    Ignoring the particulars of the case, what better test of consitutionality do you want than settled a Supreme Court opinion? Technically, you could argue that separate but equal was constitutional between Plessy and Brown. Of course it was morally wrong the whole time. And no, morality isn't relative.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It is coercive for children. Schools are institutions of learning. We expect small children to adopt behaviors tolerated by that institution.
    Is not the removal of all religious expression from public grounds coercive to those children who find peace and strength in religion? Isn't their faith protected by the same constitution. The establishment and free exercise clauses are in there in their somewhat contradictory fashions to prevent just such absolutes (absolute establishment or absolute prohibition), IMO. The framers were not sending us confusion messages, they were laying out a framework for compromise, which I think the current case is hoping to destroy.

    That said, precedent has been set repeatedly that I think will have to either be overturned (my person belief is that such a reversal of previous decisions would be more in line with consitutional principles than respecting of said precedent) or this case will succeed. Again, in my opinion.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Ok, just wanted everyone to be aware of this. And BTW, to some people the legalization of marijuana has everything to do with religious freedom. I'm not one of them, and clearly neither are you, but such blanket statements like yours are silly.
    Legalization of marijuana is probably more an economic issue, namely how to tax its use.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Length of time does not make something constitutional. Need I point out how long separate but equal went on?
    Perhaps this is semantics. But, it's worth pointing out.

    Designation of constitutionality, or lack thereof, is a function of the Supreme Court. Therefore, that which is passed by congress and signed by the President is constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. And, then it is only unconsitutional unless and until a 2/3 majority of congress says otherwise.

    Constitionality is an assigned state. It is not inherent.

    It can be predicted based on precedence, but the designation for duly passed laws is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional."

    I suppose, in this instance, a branch of the semantical debate could be what is the state of the current version of the POA in District 9
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Just noticed that KRamsauer already pointed this out
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If it was mandated, and as insertion said, they know more about oscar meyer than religion at that age.

    Sorry, you cannot argue against the coercion. It's the basis of socialization.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Is not the removal of all religious expression from public grounds coercive to those children who find peace and strength in religion? Isn't their faith protected by the same constitution. The establishment and free exercise clauses are in there in their somewhat contradictory fashions to prevent just such absolutes (absolute establishment or absolute prohibition), IMO. The framers were not sending us confusion messages, they were laying out a framework for compromise, which I think the current case is hoping to destroy.

    That said, precedent has been set repeatedly that I think will have to either be overturned (my person belief is that such a reversal of previous decisions would be more in line with consitutional principles than respecting of said precedent) or this case will succeed. Again, in my opinion.
    Please understand, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED IN THIS POST, the gov't may not endorse a religion and the gov't may NOT inhibit the expression of religious beliefs. A school child can express their religious beliefs all day frigging long in a public school. They can pray and wear a t-shirt that says super jeebus if they want, and the school can't stop them unless the child is disrupting the educational task of the school.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Perhaps this is semantics. But, it's worth pointing out.

    Designation of constitutionality, or lack thereof, is a function of the Supreme Court. Therefore, that which is passed by congress and signed by the President is constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. And, then it is only unconsitutional unless and until a 2/3 majority of congress says otherwise.

    Constitionality is an assigned state. It is not inherent.

    It can be predicted based on precedence, but the designation for duly passed laws is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional."

    I suppose, in this instance, a branch of the semantical debate could be what is the state of the current version of the POA in District 9
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Just noticed that KRamsauer already pointed this out

    You're quite correct, that's semantics given the recent ruling and obvious path to the supremem court.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Perhaps this is semantics. But, it's worth pointing out.

    Designation of constitutionality, or lack thereof, is a function of the Supreme Court. Therefore, that which is passed by congress and signed by the President is constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. And, then it is only unconsitutional unless and until a 2/3 majority of congress says otherwise.

    Constitionality is an assigned state. It is not inherent.

    It can be predicted based on precedence, but the designation for duly passed laws is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional."

    I suppose, in this instance, a branch of the semantical debate could be what is the state of the current version of the POA in District 9
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Just noticed that KRamsauer already pointed this out

    don't really want to get involved in this -- but somebody should at least consult their junior high civics books --


    an amendment passed by 2/3 of the senate is what ???

    could someone please tell me about the equal rights amendment ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    And that would be more to the issue. Having a problem with saying the pledge over not wanting to pledge to one's country is quite to the point.

    Having a problem with pledging to one's country because you don't want to pledge that that country is under a deity is quite another.
    So, should religion be removed from the pledge, are you saying it would still be an issue? Just the fact of reciting it?
    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..."
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ironically, that's why the word god is on our paper currency. To show we're not like those godless communists. Ah, you gotta love the cold war fallout.
    That may be so, but how would you explain coinage? There wasn't a Cold War, McCarthy-ism thing going on.
    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..."
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    don't really want to get involved in this -- but somebody should at least consult their junior high civics books --


    an amendment passed by 2/3 of the senate is what ???

    could someone please tell me about the equal rights amendment ...
    Oh exalted, grand.....your presence is most graciously appreciated.

    You have brought to my attention, my failure to pay attention in civics class. The 2/3 matter is for dealing with the presidential veto.

    The legislative branch's opportunity to address (redress?) declaration of unconsitutionality is by way of initiating consitutional amendment, subject to passage and state ratification.

    By now, I really should know better than to post without googling
Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions