34 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Yup Steven,you're pretty much on target with
that background thinking.
The 2nd Ammendment as explained by Libertarians,Penn and Teller :
That clip was taken from their show,*******t that ran on Showtime about gun control:
I found it easy to watch and informative,it's divided into three 9min segments at that link.
Please note: as with anything dealing with Penn and Teller,there is an occaisional crude reference and four letter word thrown in.People too politically correct and easily offended should not watch either link.
Don't you find it ironic.....
......that the same people who fear government tyranny (which could only be enforced with the assistance of the military) also object to any cuts in spending for the military they're so afraid of?
Don't you find it ironic
that the same people who fear government tyranny want to make the government enforce their beliefs on everyone else?
Wouldn't you just love to see the reactions....
.....if a school decided to include a morning prayer every day, just like the religious right wants, but it was a Muslim prayer instead of the only one they're probably thinking of?
Shouldn't it be a prayer
that God would actually listen to?
I've seen the reactions
Our grammar school teacher or an appointed student would lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and the "Lord's Prayer" every morning. The reaction was that the recitation was respectfully done...after which we quietly took our seats and awaited the teacher's next instruction. Everyone knew better than to gripe or misbehave. It seemed to work out well in the '50s-'60s.
RE: The reaction was
The reaction was that the recitation was respectfully done...after which we quietly took our seats and awaited the teacher's next instruction.
I take it James wasn't in the same classes as you.
Shouldn't it be a prayer - New!
by James Denison - 1/22/13 7:57 AM
In Reply to: Wouldn't you just love to see the reactions.... by Josh K
that God would actually listen to?
I guess kids in school back then weren't as outspoken as they are now as grandparents.
Oh??? They all became atheists later???
That to, or they discovered your God might not be their God
You didn't read the post made by Josh mentioning Muslim prayer instead of the only one they're probably thinking of?
and then James response....that I quoted?
Got your blinders on, you don't see James? seems you never see him.
I try not to gossip
or respond to members criticisms of other members. Seems rather trashy to me.
and yet you chose to respond to me.
You didn't see reactions....
.....to a teacher leading a class in a non-Christian prayer. Look at the intolerance in James's response to just me posting about it. That's exactly what I was referring to. People go on about prayer in schools but what they often really mean is Christian prayer. They seem to forget that there's more than one faith in this country.
I'd guess your scenario wouldn't happen unless
some teacher was looking to either make trouble or become famous in a twisted sort of way.
No, it would happen.....
......in any situation in which prayer in school is OK'd. If you're going to have organized prayer in schools, it has to be all-inclusive or you're establishing an official religion, which violates the First Amendment. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion for those who may be atheist or agnostic, or who just don't want to be part of a morning prayer session.
James's myopic attitude towards other religions is also irrelevant. The government can't make laws based on whether they think someone's version of God is real or not.
I think that's a stretch of the meaning of the 1st amendment
As a refresher:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Congress isn't even involved here but, if I read this portion of the amendment correctly, congress can't even pass a law prohibiting prayer in school by those whose choice is to participate. The whole controversy has been shoved aside by just avoiding confrontation. It's still freedom of and not freedom from.
BTW, it would be quite normal and expected that anyone strong of faith would hold fast to it. That's not a weakness, IMO. You might find it annoying but so is tree stump that you can't talk into leaving your yard. You learn to live with it and appreciate it's resolve.
Just as there are no atheists in foxholes....
......I'm sure there are very few in the five minutes before the SAT begins. Anyone can pray quietly to themselves any time they want now. Nobody would stop them or even likely know. We're talking about organized prayer, which is a different matter.
I don't begrudge anyone's strong belief in their faith. I'm just saying that a school board or government entity can't legally decide that one religious belief is more legitimate than another, despite what any individual might think.
And if the majority of the students believe
an outdoor recess or sports activity is healthier but a few prefer to remain inside, what should the school policy be regarding who to accommodate?...asked rhetorically, of course as the US Constitution does not apply anymore than it does about prohibiting prayer.
You know fully well.....
.....that there is a world of difference between sports and religion.
And a lot of similarity
Both require self discipline to keep on track. Both require time and both involve other people. In fact, maintaining good health is actually a part of religion.
In any event, that wasn't my point. It was about making decisions for and or by the majority of people affected so as to not cause justifiable inconvenience or actual harm.
Religion is one area.....
.....where majority rule does not apply. That's one reason the First Amendment exists.
I doubt God responds to a...
..."kill the infidel" type of prayer. That's what I was referring to, not to any particular belief system. I do remember this Jewish boy Joel in class in elementary school. He'd politely stand but not recite the "Lord's Prayer" even though there was nothing in it that was offensive or particularly "Christian". Nobody made a big deal about it as I recall.
But that's OK per your other Constitutional argument...
...i.e. the 1st Amendment only says "religion", not Islam (or Judaism) specifically.
That's my point
re: Don't you find it ironic...
No. The U.S. military is supposed to operate outside our country, not inside. Inside the U.S., a tyrannical government ... well, see Waco and/or Ruby Ridge.
So the military can't be used within the country
to fight an enemy, interesting.
So you oppose the existence.....
.....of the National Guard, and the US Coast Guard?
Not there existence. no.
I do oppose the increasing Federalization of the National Guard, particularly when they are tasked with military (as opposed to disaster relief) duties within the U.S.
The Coast Guard is fine as long as they stick to guarding the coasts - Mark
The coast, out to the 12-mile limit.....
....is part of the United States. The militarization of the National Guard can be a dangerous thing; on that I agree. Kent State comes to mind.
Forefathers learned firsthand...
There were many things that got us(forefathers) to get into an uproar against the King. However, these in turn allowed us to frame our documents to bare witness to that thinking, where we became citizens and NOT subjects. When the dust settled we became a new nation that still chafe from the crown. Thus, another war in 1812 yet again to prove our resolve and more clearly declare ourselves free of foreign rule. As for guns of the 2nd Amendment, this at that time was clearly a reflection of the citizen solider coming to the the aid of fellow countrymen and later a young nation. That we at the ready as it were to proclaim ourselves able to defend from all intrusions, foreign and domestic. A similar ring when taking the oath of becoming a new solider in today's Army. How that bares on recent events is not to be confused by the actions of troubled souls, but to should be underline that the reason to protect the 2nd amendment are still we us and shouldn't be infringed upon. The the road to Hell has always been prepared by those of good intentions. One shouldn't lose sight of that and somehow lessen or weaken what as always been protected by the common citizen and not just the NRA. However, it would be clearly foolish not to protect ourselves from these troubled souls and just enforce the current laws already in the books, aren't there enough already to do just that? -----Willy
The Fathers of the Constitution and the Revolution used
historical precedent in many arguments. They learned from the history (that of England) which yuo both seem to disdain. The English fought a Civil War 130+ years earlier than the Revolutionary War to curb a King backsliding into the position of "Kings are by God appointed" and that opposition was treason.
Gee, isn''t that what Conservatives say about liberals?? That opposition to their Conservative ideas about government are treasonous, or at least un-American? That was all the rage during the "W" years, freguently here at SE.
Oh, and the War of 1812? It was vastly more complex and different from what High School History told you. It was primarily an exercise of the political will and power of John S. Calhoun from South Carolina, and his friends in the Warhawk group. You can look it up. If there's a conflict between fact and myth, print the myth. A primary job for journalists who are all raging Liberals as we have been told endlessly. Journalists aren't Liberal, they are Entrepreneurs of the Historical Record. They print what works for the times they live in. The good ones, try to write factually, but that doesn't mean it gets published. It may be printed after their deaths if they are lucky.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)