Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ahhh dems PartII


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

#16 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:12 PM

Military schools need Chapels, as plebes cannot leave the grounds. I do however, object to the way the Air Force academy teamed up with the nutbag next door on student indoctrination a few years ago - perhaps it escaped your notice:

http://www.nytimes.c.../23academy.html

#17 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 04 February 2009 - 09:36 PM

as it should be according to how our government was set up.


Where in the constitution?

#18 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,262 posts

Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:28 PM

the first amendment, look it the hell up. read jefferson's words on why he wrote the original bill in 1777 and what he meant by it. it's high school level government. you might already know if you didn't spend high school praying instead of learning.

#19 N1kkadeemuz

N1kkadeemuz

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 07:15 AM

as it should be according to how our government was set up.


Okay now that we're on the same page, if schools begin to halt these actions for fear of losing funding, then that is an infringement upon those said students civil rights.

#20 N1kkadeemuz

N1kkadeemuz

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 07:17 AM

The time for worship is in the privacy of your own home, in your church as the case may be, or in another group setting outside of school.

School is a place for learning skills that apply to the real world. Religion is not one of those things and does not belong in a place of learning where there are surely people who do not hold the same beliefs.

We can choose our religion or lack thereof, it should not be a part of our daily lives unless we wish to subscribe to those ideas.


Faith is something that applies to the real world for those involved just because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean it doesn't matter to those who do.

#21 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:01 AM

the first amendment, look it the hell up. read jefferson's words on why he wrote the original bill in 1777 and what he meant by it. it's high school level government. you might already know if you didn't spend high school praying instead of learning.


Okay Einstein, the question was a bit tongue in cheek.
Liberal minds hear separation of church and state and think the constitution says expressly that it will punish any institution that respect religous views or has anything to do with religion. I was only wanting you to prove with the constitution that a public institution could not have a religous group meet in one of its rooms after class like so many others do.

The framers wanted nothing to do with the "establishment" of a religion, but remember they also wanted the government not to interfere with the free "exercise of religion".
The second part is what I think the liberals do not give any credence to in this case. Now, you look it the hell up.

#22 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,258 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:45 AM

Freedom of religion is great, when people are free to practice their own and others aren't subjected to having it forced upon them. That kind of takes the freedom out of the situation. I don't mind religious groups meeting at schools as long as it isn't included in the curriculum. That's what I'm saying. After school meetings are fine by me as long as I'm not required by the school to attend. Prayer in school is fine as long as you do it quietly, not over the PA system for all students to hear. That's what I'm saying.

If a school wants to broadcast those beliefs and practices to the whole student body, then by all means please take that school's portion of my tax dollars away.

#23 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:52 AM

The article explicitly states that prior decisions and precedents make the kind of actions talked about here a non-starter. This is just the religious rights version of "they're gonna take mah gunz!".

What is really being talked about here is using government funds for religious training. The government has a vested interest in not promoting one religion over another, and instead of being put through court case after court case by every whack job preacher who feels slighted, they want to avoid the situation altogether.

If you are interested in a closer relationship between government and religion, then yes, this kind of provision will not be to your liking. After 8 years of Bush, I am sure there are some disappointed people out there that will not want to see the wink wink nudge nudge policies of "faith based" initiatives slowly become less relevant - although Obama has said that he plans to keep a version of the program in place.

The upshot: Don't worry kids, the Jews for Jesus club at Garinger High will still be able to meet after school.

#24 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:31 AM

there is no separation of gay and state in the constitution.


There would be if Ben Franklin had hit on Thomas Jefferson. Guarandamntee you.

#25 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,109 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:49 AM

there is no separation of gay and state in the constitution.


There's no "separation of church and state" in the constitution, either.

#26 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:08 AM

It's called the First Amendment. That is just as much a part of the Consitution as anything else in it. People can and will argue about it until the end of time:

http://en.wikipedia....lishment_Clause

Jeffersons letter:

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. [Italics added] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States


The Constitution was not written in a way to make this concrete, but we do know from the words of the writer of the Constitution himself what he intended. To me, the combination of the ambiguous words of the Constitution along with the clarity of the followup explanation (and in fact, the explanation was written to reassure a baptist minister in CT. who was having some issues apparently) this "wall" is indeed a good thing for religious freedom, despite the issues some people may have with it.

#27 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:24 AM

It's called the First Amendment. That is just as much a part of the Consitution as anything else in it. People can and will argue about it until the end of time:

http://en.wikipedia....lishment_Clause

Jeffersons letter:



The Constitution was not written in a way to make this concrete, but we do know from the words of the writer of the Constitution himself what he intended. To me, the combination of the ambiguous words of the Constitution along with the clarity of the followup explanation (and in fact, the explanation was written to reassure a baptist minister in CT. who was having some issues apparently) this "wall" is indeed a good thing for religious freedom, despite the issues some people may have with it.



Thomas Jefferson had slaves.

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:27 AM

Yes and he made babies with them. No word though, on whether he only slept with the Christian ones.

#29 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,109 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 11:04 AM

It's called the First Amendment. That is just as much a part of the Consitution as anything else in it. People can and will argue about it until the end of time:

http://en.wikipedia....lishment_Clause

Jeffersons letter:



The Constitution was not written in a way to make this concrete, but we do know from the words of the writer of the Constitution himself what he intended. To me, the combination of the ambiguous words of the Constitution along with the clarity of the followup explanation (and in fact, the explanation was written to reassure a baptist minister in CT. who was having some issues apparently) this "wall" is indeed a good thing for religious freedom, despite the issues some people may have with it.


Jefferson's letter is not part of the Constitution.

#30 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,774 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 11:14 AM

Your grasp of the obvious continues to mesmerize.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com