- #141
schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.
Protecting individual rights is a FEDERAL matter and as such it will be decided in federal court.Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously that solution sucks.
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.
Originally posted by jb
i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.
The lawsuit, now assigned to the court's Green Bay division, contends that the school district violated Honer's constitutional rights to equal protection, free speech and free expression of religion. It seeks an injunction that the district "cease its discriminatory and unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring students from expressing their religious beliefs in their speeches, songs or performances at graduation exercises."
That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.
The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.Originally posted by kat
To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children.
Originally posted by Zero
The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.
Originally posted by kat
Maybe you should explain what "private beliefs" look like to you, just to be on the same page, if you know what I mean?
Kat,Originally posted by Kat;
I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern.
Originally posted by kat
In the religous aspect, I don't think the state should enforce children to use religious speak of any sort, nor do I think they should prevent any child from using religuous speak if they so choose because being an open society means sometimes..you have to put up with what other people are saying or doing..even if you disagree.
Originally posted by Zero
Well, I'm not going for it...tell those kids to shut up and not be disruptive in the class.
That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, you know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, you know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?
Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.
_________
"Accept the result of a free election" Mikhail Gorbechev, 1989. The Fall of the Soviet Union to S O L I D A R I T Y
No, shwarz. Since such a law would violate the 1st amendment, as Zero indicated, the alternative to passing an unconstitutional law is clearly a vote to amend the Constitution. Schwarz, I suggest YOU read the 1st amendment again. And while you're at it, read Article V - justification and procedures for amending the constitution.Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh? Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
happen to have an unabridged dictionary handy:
"Article 1: 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 peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Zero:
Dislike of minorities? I don't dislike minorities at all.