Obama has much to learn-Boston Arrest.

[zilla]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/index.html


As the leader of the free world, should you really comment on such things? Pending lawsuits and we have the President weighing in when he was not even there?

If the police came to my house investigating a possible burglary, I would say "thanks for keeping my house safe" and then do whatever the hell they asked.

[gator]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/harvard.gates.interview/index.html


As the leader of the free world, should you really comment on such things? Pending lawsuits and we have the President weighing in when he was not even there?

If the police came to my house investigating a possible burglary, I would say "thanks for keeping my house safe" and then do whatever the hell they asked.

For once, zilla, we agree. Something tells me that Mr. Gates Jr. thought he was being profiled and then made a complete ass out of himself (causing himself to be arrested). Of course, the cops, responding to a house break-in, were suspicious and wanted to see some ID. Nevertheless, we don't know what happened. The charges were dropped (IMO, because this guy has connections) and no harm, no foul. Why Obama couldn't just say no comment is beyond me.

[zilla]

For once, zilla, we agree. Something tells me that Mr. Gates Jr. thought he was being profiled and then made a complete ass out of himself (causing himself to be arrested). Of course, the cops, responding to a house break-in, were suspicious and wanted to see some ID. Nevertheless, we don't know what happened. The charges were dropped (IMO, because this guy has connections) and no harm, no foul. Why Obama couldn't just say no comment is beyond me.

As me being the only moderate on this site, thanks for saying you agree. Glad my influence is paying off.

[chriswebber]

Gates and Obama are out of line.

A neighbor called the police after seeing men trying to break into a house. A house where the owners had gone on vacation. Most people tell their neighbors when they go on vacation so that the neighbors can alert the police of potential robbers... Wait, whats wrong with this picture? Oh yeah, Gates is screaming racism. I can't wait for Gates to be sued for libel and slander!

[gator]

As me being the only moderate on this site, thanks for saying you agree. Glad my influence is paying off.

Ha Ha Ha haaaa......moderate.....that's good, zilla! You are as moderate as I am. I don't have any problem saying that I lean to the right; I know I'm conservative. If you think you are moderate, you are just kidding yourself.

Here's a little test:
Conservatives never liked Obama, moderates have already flipped the switch on Obama, and liberals are still swallowing (the BS, not cum). I think most people here now which group represents you.

[zilla]

Ha Ha Ha haaaa......moderate.....that's good, zilla! You are as moderate as I am. I don't have any problem saying that I lean to the right; I know I'm conservative. If you think you are moderate, you are just kidding yourself.

Here's a little test:
Conservatives never liked Obama, moderates have already flipped the switch on Obama, and liberals are still swallowing (the BS, not cum). I think most people here now which group represents you.


Total moderate.

All of you are for larger government (anti abortion, or social issues you want them to butt into)

Michigan Man only buys American cars because they are made in America. A freemarket attiude would say, I buy the best car at the best price

Most of you hate global free trade.

bye bye lloyd sleeps at a mental hospital at night (state funded)

And you Gator, where to even begin. I would mention your welfare (errrr PHD payments) but that would be mean.

[gator]

Total moderate.

All of you are for larger government (anti abortion, or social issues you want them to butt into)

Michigan Man only buys American cars because they are made in America. A freemarket attiude would say, I buy the best car at the best price

Most of you hate global free trade.

bye bye lloyd sleeps at a mental hospital at night (state funded)

And you Gator, where to even begin. I would mention your welfare (errrr PHD payments) but that would be mean.

You make me laugh. First, a law against abortion doesn't require a whole new division of government. I don't now how you tie that to larger government. What social issues are you talking about? Most us want to do away with social security, medicare, medicade, welfare, healthcare. How do we want bigger government. You want us to believe that you want less government? Bang your head on the desk and get that hamster-powered processer in your head back on track.

[zilla]

Show me one post where I said I support welfare or like social security? If thinking that bailing out the banks is liberal well I guess GWB is liberal too. Healthcare I said was too expensive.

As far as abortion, it is legal based on the right to privacy. Anyone that is against the rights of women to get an abortion wants their privacy taken away by the government. Now don't come back with some it's about the fetus. Gator when you get knocked up some day then you can decide if you want to keep it or not. Until then, you have no right and neither does the government to make such decisions for these women. Would I ever want my wife to have an abortion? Nope, but that is my choice. But I will never tell anyone what to do in regard to this. This my friend is the very basis of a real conservative.

[gator]

Show me one post where I said I support welfare or like social security? If thinking that bailing out the banks is liberal well I guess GWB is liberal too. Healthcare I said was too expensive.

As far as abortion, it is legal based on the right to privacy. Anyone that is against the rights of women to get an abortion wants their privacy taken away by the government. Now don't come back with some it's about the fetus. Gator when you get knocked up some day then you can decide if you want to keep it or not. Until then, you have no right and neither does the government to make such decisions for these women. Would I ever want my wife to have an abortion? Nope, but that is my choice. But I will never tell anyone what to do in regard to this. This my friend is the very basis of a real conservative.

OK, I didn't say you supported social security or healtcare; I said all of us don't support it. Now you do support Obama, who is pushing healthcare hard and will never remove social security, so I'll leave that out there. The last I checked, it takes a man and a woman to get pregnant. I figure the man has as much right to that baby as the woman. To be honest, I'm not that big of an anti-abortion advocate. I mean I certainly don't agree with it late in the pregnancy, but I certainly won't tell you I am an authority on when life begins. Is a "day after" pill wrong? I don't know. I don't think so. Maybe it's when you can detect a heart beat. I have a problem with late term abortions, but I don't worry so much about the first couple of days. I just didn't understand your logic about being anti-abortion is supporting BIG government. All lawmakers have to do is make a law that makes it illegal after a certain point of pregnancy. That doesn't create hundreds of new government jobs, which happens to be my definition of BIG government. Bottom line: I don't ever have to have a baby to know that killing a fetus that could survive outside the womb is wrong.

[byebyelloyd]

Total moderate.

All of you are for larger government (anti abortion, or social issues you want them to butt into)

Michigan Man only buys American cars because they are made in America. A freemarket attiude would say, I buy the best car at the best price

Most of you hate global free trade.

bye bye lloyd sleeps at a mental hospital at night (state funded)

And you Gator, where to even begin. I would mention your welfare (errrr PHD payments) but that would be mean.

i knew you were a fucking complete moron, but do you expect any of us to believe you have no clue what the difference between moderate and liberal is? what a tool.

[zilla]

i knew you were a fucking complete moron, but do you expect any of us to believe you have no clue what the difference between moderate and liberal is? what a tool.

I would pass judgement on whether you are a libera-moderate or conservative, but once again what would be the point you are to fucking lazy to vote.

Your brother fighting for us risks his life and makes a mulit year investment and you can't pull yourself away from your television for 1 hour. What a dishonor you are to your family. :mad:

[byebyelloyd]

I would pass judgement on whether you are a libera-moderate or conservative, but once again what would be the point you are to fucking lazy to vote.

Your brother fighting for us risks his life and makes a mulit year investment and you can't pull yourself away from your television for 1 hour. What a dishonor you are to your family. :mad:

you make a stupid fucking useless point with your own statement, pussy. my brothers fighting for me and other patriots, sorry you do not qualify, and you vote for every piece of shit that undermines the whole point of the war. obviously your communist dipshit ass forgot about the real reason that true americans, again not your dumb ass, are fighting to begin with. theres plenty of room for you in cuba. with your beliefs and worthless arguments on this site, why not make the jump immediately?

[zilla]

you make a stupid fucking useless point with your own statement, pussy. my brothers fighting for me and other patriots, sorry you do not qualify, and you vote for every piece of shit that undermines the whole point of the war. obviously your communist dipshit ass forgot about the real reason that true americans, again not your dumb ass, are fighting to begin with. theres plenty of room for you in cuba. with your beliefs and worthless arguments on this site, why not make the jump immediately?

Your anger issues are my new entertaiment on this website. Can you go one post without profanity or is your vocabulary to small for that?

[Mike Furley]

Limbaugh referred to Obama as President Barack Nifong on his show yesterday. I found that to be a clever play. BTW, Obama's poll numbers with Rasmussen have hit their lowest level of his presidency.

It will be interesting to see how responds, especially since the July jobs numbers come out in another week. If health care doesn't pass before the August break, this could turn out to be a dour stretch politically for our young president.

[zilla]

Limbaugh referred to Obama as President Barack Nifong on his show yesterday. I found that to be a clever play. BTW, Obama's poll numbers with Rasmussen have hit their lowest level of his presidency.

It will be interesting to see how responds, especially since the July jobs numbers come out in another week. If health care doesn't pass before the August break, this could turn out to be a dour stretch politically for our young president.

You listen to Limbaugh? Figures. BTW my 401k is up 13% for the year, life is good.

byebye, a 401k is a fund that people with real jobs contribute to on a monthly basis for retirement. I know for a fact you don't have one, but wasn't sure if you were aware of what one was. Now you know, you are welcome loser.

[byebyelloyd]

Your anger issues are my new entertaiment on this website. Can you go one post without profanity or is your vocabulary to small for that?

yeah i suppose pussy. i'm too "lazy" to go back and show your ignorant ass all the profanity you use. on a happier note, your ignorance and bitch like attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you is also very entertaining. looks like some interesting conversation is in our future.

[byebyelloyd]

You listen to Limbaugh? Figures. BTW my 401k is up 13% for the year, life is good.

byebye, a 401k is a fund that people with real jobs contribute to on a monthly basis for retirement. I know for a fact you don't have one, but wasn't sure if you were aware of what one was. Now you know, you are welcome loser.

yes, although i make more than you and contribute more to my IRA than you make in a year. an IRA is a retirement account for people not as fucking stupid as you and don't rely on one bad company's stock for a nestegg. you will see that when obama runs the economy into the ground and your 401K ends up as relevant as enron.

[zilla]

"don't rely on one bad company's stock for a nestegg"


WOW!!!! Thanks for proving my point. You have no fucking clue what a 401k is. God you are so fucking stupid.

Listen redneck, please quit pretending you have money, a home, and a real job. The fact you just proved you don't know what a 401k tells me you make about 18k a year, a wife that hates and cheats on you, and we already know your family laughs at you.

All for know loser.

[byebyelloyd]

"don't rely on one bad company's stock for a nestegg"


WOW!!!! Thanks for proving my point. You have no fucking clue what a 401k is. God you are so fucking stupid.

Listen redneck, please quit pretending you have money, a home, and a real job. The fact you just proved you don't know what a 401k tells me you make about 18k a year, a wife that hates and cheats on you, and we already know your family laughs at you.

All for know loser.

make sense dipshit. it seems you're the fucking moron putting money into an account you have no clue about. thank god i'm single, make more than you any day of your life and have no worries about a homosexual slut of a domestic partner who you still can't seem to find the courage to tell him all his infidelity really bothers your emotional security. hang in there homo, you'll find the right man for you one day. talk to you later.

[Mike Furley]

You listen to Limbaugh? Figures. BTW my 401k is up 13% for the year, life is good.

byebye, a 401k is a fund that people with real jobs contribute to on a monthly basis for retirement. I know for a fact you don't have one, but wasn't sure if you were aware of what one was. Now you know, you are welcome loser.

i work during the day. I read it on Media Matters. They summarize each hour of the show.

[amazinblue]

.. it is legal based on the right to privacy..

Zilla,

Can you help me out? I'm trying to find the Right to Privacy that you refer to. I've reviewed The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence and haven't seen a "right to privacy" described anywhere.

I don't wish to argue various positions on abortion, which usually infers the "right to privacy". I believe that the abortion issue is among the most, if not the most, divisive topics in the country. Personally, I believe that both sides of the abortion argument have an arguable point.

My question is - "the right to privacy" - where is it defined in the instruments that defined and established our government. So, where is it?

[zilla]

Zilla,

Can you help me out? I'm trying to find the Right to Privacy that you refer to. I've reviewed The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence and haven't seen a "right to privacy" described anywhere.

I don't wish to argue various positions on abortion, which usually infers the "right to privacy". I believe that the abortion issue is among the most, if not the most, divisive topics in the country. Personally, I believe that both sides of the abortion argument have an arguable point.

My question is - "the right to privacy" - where is it defined in the instruments that defined and established our government. So, where is it?

Liberty means privacy. Words like privacy don't have to be spelled out but is implied as a general right within the constitution.

Question for you. Do you feel we have no right to privacy in this country just becasue that word is not listed?

[Wolvrin704]

The interpretation of liberty meaning right to privacy is one of the most controversial elements surrounding the Constitution. A liberal interpretation of the Constitution renders it as such and it wasn't until the 1920's that the Supreme Court began to interpret it that way. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th are specifically seen to be the privacy amendments.

Funny thing is those that argue the most for right to privacy are those that want the most gov't interference in our lives.

[zilla]

The interpretation of liberty meaning right to privacy is one of the most controversial elements surrounding the Constitution. A liberal interpretation of the Constitution renders it as such and it wasn't until the 1920's that the Supreme Court began to interpret it that way. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th and 14th are specifically seen to be the privacy amendments.

Funny thing is those that argue the most for right to privacy are those that want the most gov't interference in our lives.

From the case:

She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

[zilla]

"Funny thing is those that argue the most for right to privacy are those that want the most gov't interference in our lives."


Interesting in that I think the very same thing about conservatives. Every social agenda you have involves more interference in the private lives of the citizens.

[Wolvrin704]

"Funny thing is those that argue the most for right to privacy are those that want the most gov't interference in our lives."


Interesting in that I think the very same thing about conservatives. Every social agenda you have involves more interference in the private lives of the citizens.

I'll put it this way, liberals don't want the gov't interferring in their sins. Every man wants to do what he views as best in his own eyes. But they're ok with gov't becoming bigger at the expense of business or the rich to even out the playing field. The gov't cannot fix every issue nor should they. If people would become responsible for their own actions we wouldn't need so much gov't.

I don't see how every social agenda (which is the heart of the difference between liberal and conservatibe) precludes more gov't interference from the conservative stance. Its just as interferring from a liberal viewpoint, IMO.

For instance liberals don't want any interference with abortion because its a womans right. But its ok for the gov't to interfere with just about any other aspect of my life including guns which is a protected amendment. The abortion issue is vague in that it is a liberal interpretation but gun ownership is right there in black and white. Same goes with many constitutional issues such as seperation of church and state, its simply not there.

[zilla]

I'll put it this way, liberals don't want the gov't interferring in their sins. Every man wants to do what he views as best in his own eyes. But they're ok with gov't becoming bigger at the expense of business or the rich to even out the playing field. The gov't cannot fix every issue nor should they. If people would become responsible for their own actions we wouldn't need so much gov't.

I don't see how every social agenda (which is the heart of the difference between liberal and conservatibe) precludes more gov't interference from the conservative stance. Its just as interferring from a liberal viewpoint, IMO.

For instance liberals don't want any interference with abortion because its a womans right. But its ok for the gov't to interfere with just about any other aspect of my life including guns which is a protected amendment. The abortion issue is vague in that it is a liberal interpretation but gun ownership is right there in black and white. Same goes with many constitutional issues such as seperation of church and state, its simply not there.


Who are you to judge what a sin is or not? I think torture is a sin, but I am sure many who claim to be religious do not.

"Same goes with many constitutional issues such as seperation of church and state, its simply not there."

First Amendment protects us from this. The seperation between church and state is the greatest thing we have going for us. Everytime someone like you thinks it is a bad idea I ask him- would you like if you went to a high school graduation and someone says let's now lower our heads to Allah in prayer and went on with a 2 minute Muslim prayer. Not so great huh?

[zilla]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

[Wolvrin704]

Who are you to judge what a sin is or not? I think torture is a sin, but I am sure many who claim to be religious do not.

"Same goes with many constitutional issues such as seperation of church and state, its simply not there."

First Amendment protects us from this. The seperation between church and state is the greatest thing we have going for us. Everytime someone like you thinks it is a bad idea I ask him- would you like if you went to a high school graduation and someone says let's now lower our heads to Allah in prayer and went on with a 2 minute Muslim prayer. Not so great huh?

I don't judge what is a sin or not, God does.

[Wolvrin704]

The clause "Seperation of church and state" were first coined by Thomas Jefferson.

First of all he did not write the Bil of Rights, Madison did and he was in the camp of strict interpretation of the Constiution.
Secondly Jefferson was not even present during the Constitutional Convention, he was in Paris as ambassador to France.

The idea of seperation of church and state was to keep a state sponsored denomination from gaining total power in the gov't such as the Roman Catholic church did through most of Europe or the Church of England did with its merging of the head of church and state in teh person of the monarch. The point is that the gov't should not make you legally obliged to attend X denomination or to follow the precepts of a certain religion.

Instead through the history of this country it has almost become a religion in and of itself to keep any tones of religion out of any form of gov't. We have gone to a total extreme to do so.


... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities

To me the Supreme Court and the gov't in association has determined that the seperation of church and state means that individuals may not excercise or mention religion when in an offical capacity. That in itself is a violation of my First Amendment rights. How is it that its not ok to publicly pray at a school graduation or at school but its ok for Congress to brgin with a prayer or the Presidents(or any politician) to mention God in many of their speeches?

[gator]

Liberty means privacy.

Well, I certainly hope this isn't true because then the government could stick each of us in a dungeon, were we would have all the privacy one could hope for but no liberty (right to act as I see fit as long as I do not bring harm to others).

I thought the debate between zilla and 704 was interesting about government infringing on our "liberties." Not too surprising, I tend to side with 704 here. Just putting in my 2 cents here, I wanted to comment on the three issues where I feel liberals think conservatives want to crush personal liberty: abortion, church and religion, torture.

Abortion - like I said before, I'm not a hard-core anti-abortion advocate. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers to tough questions like these. Personally, I have a difficult time differentiating between precautionary birth control and something like the day after pill, which some hard-core Pro-liferes would denounce. Even when the fetus is nothing but a few cells, I don't know if I would defend it as a "person." I mean I kill other lifeforms all the time (insects, bacteria, ants, etc.) without a single thought. On the other hand, I abhor late-term abortions. I guess the best way to describe my feelings is to consider a hypothetical case of two women being murdered: one pregnant and the other not. Do I feel one is more tragic? Yes, I do. Isn't that what made the Staci(sp?)/Scott Peterson drama so disgusting? How about those cases where people kill the mother to cut the baby out of the stomach? The baby wasn't born yet, they kill the mother (who is now legally dead), and yet a baby (a new life) survives. I'm just a simple man who has a faith in God (and his laws) and tries to reason what is just. The Bible, like the Constitution, is often open for interpretation. Just because we become born-again Christians, it's not like we come out from under the water with all the answers. In fact that is what I think the Bible is trying to tell us: life is a personal struggle between good and evil. Without Christ you cannot win the battle because a) you don't always know what the right thing to do is and b) you won't always have the strength to do the right thing even if you now what it is. Under the saving power of Christ, however, we are compelled to do the best we can.

Church and religion - If I followed Zilla correctly on this point, there is the separationist and non-preferential forms of interpretation of the First Ammendment. Based on my personal experiences with people, I would say that liberals GENERALLY follow the separationist point of view, while conservatives favor the non-preferential point of view. I say this because every time I turn around the ACLU, the most liberal organization on the planet, is trying to keep some kid from mention God or saying a prayer at a graduation, they want some judge to remove the ten commandments from his courtroom, or they want to remove any symbolism of religion from goverment property, flags, or currency. I think that certainly qualifies for the separationist point of view. I also feel that the separationist view is the most restrictive and most intrusive of the two sides. They are literally saying, "At these buildings, sites, or occassions you cannot have free expression of your religion," which I happen to believe is a direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause in the ammendment. I also understand that every time someone says a prayer to Jesus at any public gathering it may offend or at least alienating those of other faiths and atheist. Yet, in all this time what harm has it done. Because I truly believe in "FREEDOM OF RELIGION," my answer to your "kid saying a prayer to Allah at graduation" question is, "That as long as it is respectful and not advocating violence against others, I would hope that everyone would be as respectful to them as they would want for their own religion." I truly believe this was the intent of the 1st Ammendment: You are free to practice any religion you want (as long as it isn't threatening to others) at any time or place. I prefer this view of "freedom of religion" over the liberal separationist view of - Well, we can't offend anyone, so nobody is is free to even bring it up or display their faith at this place, discuss it here at this point and time, and on and on.

Torture - well, zilla, I would certainly think that most Christians/conservatives would certainly be against the principle of torture in many cases. Do innocent people have a right to not get tortured by loosers like Bundy, Dahmer, etc. Sure they do. This is another one of those complicated issues. I think much of it has to do with the intent behind the torture. Any time the intent behind the action is for fun, to humiliate, or simply abuse people then HELL YES, I would hope everyone is against it. So yes, the stuff at Abu Grab(sp?) shouldn't have happened because it looked like it was just to humiliate them. If you were referring to the actions at the Holiday Inn (Gitmo) down in Cuba, then I think we've got a whole other debate on our hands. From what I've read, only three people were waterboarded (certainly unpleasant, but hardly "torture") and it was performed with the intent to save other lives. Before you start saying, "How can you say that isn't torture?" Let me just say, "I believe there were other techniques, which I would consider torture, where he would have talked the first time around instead of over 100 times." Further, I personally think it was not torture because their lives were not in any real danger....hell they had doctors on hand to monitor the action. I know that saying waterboarding was "OK" opens up a whole new question: "Who decides who gets tortured?" That is a scary question, and I really don't care to debate it right now. All I will say is if I had those guys (prisoners, not innocent people by the way) under my control and thought they knew something about major attacks on my country; I would have figured out exactly what they knew a lot sooner than our national intelligence agency. Hence, I can't fault the program too much. I admit that this may be the best point you have about conservatives wanting to infringe on peoples rights, because torture certainly does infringe on the whole pursuit of happiness thing. On the other hand, I believe the government has a right, even a duty, to protect its citizens from preventable threats. I mean, isn't that the oath of military personnel, "to protect America from all threats, foreign and domestic." Since those waterboarded guys were not US citizens, the Constitution does not apply to them, IMO, and since they were not uniformed military they are not covered by the Geneva Convention. I just don't see the "sin" in ruffing up a few guys (without really endangering their lives) in an attempt to save hundreds or thousands of innocent peoples lives. In fact.....after that statement, zilla, I would have to think you are insane if you were indeed talking about the waterboarding being a sin.

[zilla]

"I say this because every time I turn around the ACLU, the most liberal organization on the planet, is trying to keep some kid from mention God or saying a prayer at a graduation, they want some judge to remove the ten commandments from his courtroom, or they want to remove any symbolism of religion from goverment property, flags, or currency. I think that certainly qualifies for the separationist point of view. I also feel that the separationist view is the most restrictive and most intrusive of the two sides. They are literally saying, "At these buildings, sites, or occassions you cannot have free expression of your religion," which I happen to believe is a direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause in the ammendment."


And everytime it goes to court the schools, etc.... are told to remove them. Time and time again the courts have ruled it is a violation of the church and state. Much like the 2nd amendment, it is a non-issue now and people that continue to ignore the rulings and display the 10 commandments,etc... are just wasting eveyones time.

Regarding your views on it, I ask again. How would you like to send your kids to a school where the teacher had verses of the Quran hung up in the classroom and mentioned Allah as god? How would you like if you went to the federal and or state building in your town and Muslim monuments were at the front steps? Two examples you must accept and not complain about if you also want to display your religion to others that might not agree.

Bottom line for me is people have plenty of time and places where they can worship their god and need to keep it to that.

[The Michigan Man]

And everytime it goes to court the schools, etc.... are told to remove them. Time and time again the courts have ruled it is a violation of the church and state. Much like the 2nd amendment, it is a non-issue now and people that continue to ignore the rulings and display the 10 commandments,etc... are just wasting eveyones time.

Regarding your views on it, I ask again. How would you like to send your kids to a school where the teacher had verses of the Quran hung up in the classroom and mentioned Allah as god? How would you like if you went to the federal and or state building in your town and Muslim monuments were at the front steps? Two examples you must accept and not complain about if you also want to display your religion to others that might not agree.

Bottom line for me is people have plenty of time and places where they can worship their god and need to keep it to that.

The whole "separation of church and state" concept seems to be elusive. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that religious symbols cannot be displayed in government buildings. The separation pertains to state sanctioned religions, ie, it cannot be legislated that Alabama is a Baptist state and the tenants of that sect be adhered to under law.

The US is a Christian nation, founded and built by Christians. There is no disputing that. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., had no role (or a minimal role) in founding this country, so sure, no one is going to put passages from the Quran or a statue of Buddha in a US government building.

If I did send my kid to schools in a country that was founded by Muslims, I would most certainly expect Islamic symbols to be in the classroom. The same with government buildings – who am I to tell a Muslim country to strip itself of Islamic symbols, how arrogant is that? Only in America do godless people carry the day. And yes, in most Islamic countries, there are religious minorities that exist there and aren’t demanding that the majority bow to their minority demands.

Where do you think our laws are derived from? The 10 Commandments. Unless we want to change our laws to mirror radical Islamic laws, the Bible and biblical symbols are appropriate in government buildings where the 10 Commandments are given the force of law. If people don't like being in a country founded by Judeo-Christians, there are certainly a vast amount of alternatives available outside of the US, and I encourage the ACLU and all of these other that want to strip the US of its heritage to explore these options. I hear that Islamabad is just lovely this time of year.

[zilla]

The whole "separation of church and state" concept seems to be elusive. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that religious symbols cannot be displayed in government buildings. The separation pertains to state sanctioned religions, ie, it cannot be legislated that Alabama is a Baptist state and the tenants of that sect be adhered to under law.

The US is a Christian nation, founded and built by Christians. There is no disputing that. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., had no role (or a minimal role) in founding this country, so sure, no one is going to put passages from the Quran or a statue of Buddha in a US government building.

If I did send my kid to schools in a country that was founded by Muslims, I would most certainly expect Islamic symbols to be in the classroom. The same with government buildings – who am I to tell a Muslim country to strip itself of Islamic symbols, how arrogant is that? Only in America do godless people carry the day. And yes, in most Islamic countries, there are religious minorities that exist there and aren’t demanding that the majority bow to their minority demands.

Where do you think our laws are derived from? The 10 Commandments. Unless we want to change our laws to mirror radical Islamic laws, the Bible and biblical symbols are appropriate in government buildings where the 10 Commandments are given the force of law. If people don't like being in a country founded by Judeo-Christians, there are certainly a vast amount of alternatives available outside of the US, and I encourage the ACLU and all of these other that want to strip the US of its heritage to explore these options. I hear that Islamabad is just lovely this time of year.


Leave it you to take a good discussion and tell people that disagree to move, good job you arrogant a-hole. This country was founded on freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The courts have ruled over and over again that everything that you just posted is 100% wrong and against the constitution.

So I will throw it back at you. If you want to live in a theocracy there are plently of places for you to move. I will pay for your plane ticket.

I am just thankful the courts are on my side.

[The Michigan Man]

Leave it you to take a good discussion and tell people that disagree to move, good job you arrogant a-hole. This country was founded on freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The courts have ruled over and over again that everything that you just posted is 100% wrong and against the constitution.

So I will throw it back at you. If you want to live in a theocracy there are plently of places for you to move. I will pay for your plane ticket.

I am just thankful the courts are on my side.

I just encourage people who despise this country's heritage and relentlessly try to strip it away to go find a place that is better suited for them. Why tear down something that the majority loves just to appease the atheists, who did not found this country? And yes, I regret to inform you that a majority of this country are Christians.

Just because whack-job liberal justices, like those found in the 9th Circus, agree with your point of view doesn't make it correct. These types of decisions should be left to the people, through the actions of the legislature, not through activist judges that take their out of touch opinions and impose them on everyone else. If you want the symbols abolished, pass a law.

And please, find me where religious symbols are prohibited in the Constitution. Somehow that section has never been included in any copy that I've studied. Hint: there is no language of this kind, so if it against the Constitution, please cite the section it violates.

[zilla]

I just encourage people who despise this country's heritage and relentlessly try to strip it away to go find a place that is better suited for them. Why tear down something that the majority loves just to appease the atheists, who did not found this country? And yes, I regret to inform you that a majority of this country are Christians.

Just because whack-job liberal justices, like those found in the 9th Circus, agree with your point of view doesn't make it correct. These types of decisions should be left to the people, through the actions of the legislature, not through activist judges that take their out of touch opinions and impose them on everyone else. If you want the symbols abolished, pass a law.

And please, find me where religious symbols are prohibited in the Constitution. Somehow that section has never been included in any copy that I've studied. Hint: there is no language of this kind, so if it against the Constitution, please cite the section it violates.


I love the below quote:

"America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion."

If you have been paying attention you would have read the constitution does not have to spell things out and your question of symbols is a joke. When every single case tells schools to take down stuff, doesn't that mean anything to you and what is legal? Any light bulbs go off?

The saddest thing is I am wasting my time with this. As said before it is a non-issue and the rule of law and what America is all about is in my corner.

[zilla]

Required reading below. The truth shall set you free.



The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
What about the Declaration of Independence?
We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.
The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation.

[The Michigan Man]

I love the below quote:

"America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion."

If you have been paying attention you would have read the constitution does not have to spell things out and your question of symbols is a joke. When every single case tells schools to take down stuff, doesn't that mean anything to you and what is legal? Any light bulbs go off?

The saddest thing is I am wasting my time with this. As said before it is a non-issue and the rule of law and what America is all about is in my corner.

Okay law professor: "the constitution does not have to spell things out"??? Okay, then what purpose does the constitution serve? You are hilarious!

So religious symbols "tyrannize the minority"? What an over-dramatic douche. Quoting crap from a "Freedom from Religion" website, are we?

And then you copy and paste a copy of the Constitution as if you know what the fuck you're talking about. You provide me with such entertainment!

Also, as an armed forces veteran, I'm sure you took a principled stand and refused to invoke the name of God when taking your oath right?

[zilla]

MM,

I understand your anger I really do. If my opinions were time and time again to be proven wrong in the courts I would be bitter as well.


"Also, as an armed forces veteran, I'm sure you took a principled stand and refused to invoke the name of God when taking your oath right?"

I was so excited to serve my country I really don't remember what I said. Being such a great American all I remember is thinking "how can I help"

Oh yeah, for those that make fun of the CG watch Deadliest Catch next Tuesday. I think your opinion will change. Artic storm boys and the CG is there to serve.

[The Michigan Man]

MM,

I understand your anger I really do. If my opinions were time and time again to be proven wrong in the courts I would be bitter as well.


"Also, as an armed forces veteran, I'm sure you took a principled stand and refused to invoke the name of God when taking your oath right?"

I was so excited to serve my country I really don't remember what I said. Being such a great American all I remember is thinking "how can I help"

Oh yeah, for those that make fun of the CG watch Deadliest Catch next Tuesday. I think your opinion will change. Artic storm boys and the CG is there to serve.

I don't base my interpretation on what is right and wrong based upon the opinions of activist judges. Do some research, the courts have also found for allowing religious symbols in federal buildings - you make it appear as if the courts unanimously have been removing all symbols, and that is not the case. (See Van Orden v Perry, a Texas case from 2005). A lot of the decisions against symbols have been 5-4, so it isn't like they are landslide decisions.

Do you think that all Christmas decorations, including Christmas trees, should be forbidden in and around government buildings?

Sorry to hear that you didn't consider your oath important. I'm glad I didn't serve anywhere near you.

[Wolvrin704]

Leave it you to take a good discussion and tell people that disagree to move, good job you arrogant a-hole. This country was founded on freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The courts have ruled over and over again that everything that you just posted is 100% wrong and against the constitution.

So I will throw it back at you. If you want to live in a theocracy there are plently of places for you to move. I will pay for your plane ticket.

I am just thankful the courts are on my side.

Judges are people with their own agendas and views. And the way the Supreme Court is they judge based on precedence so once an activist court makes an issue decided a particular way, future courts typically follow that ruling.

So in effect what I'm saying is that the judges can be wrong just as any other person can. Just because they rule a certain way doesn't mean they are right. Activist judges have caused more gov't intrusion than any of the so-called conservative social agenda incursions you speak of.

At one time the Supreme Court decided in the Dredd Scott case that blacks could not nor would they ever be citizens of the US. So yes, the courts can be wrong.

[zilla]

I don't base my interpretation on what is right and wrong based upon the opinions of activist judges. Do some research, the courts have also found for allowing religious symbols in federal buildings - you make it appear as if the courts unanimously have been removing all symbols, and that is not the case. (See Van Orden v Perry, a Texas case from 2005). A lot of the decisions against symbols have been 5-4, so it isn't like they are landslide decisions.

Do you think that all Christmas decorations, including Christmas trees, should be forbidden in and around government buildings?

Sorry to hear that you didn't consider your oath important. I'm glad I didn't serve anywhere near you.


I find it so funny you right wingers use words like activist judges. The fact that right wingers want to load up the courts with their type is exactly what being an activist judge is all about. Let's think for a second. You want judges to overturn roe v wade. You want judges to turn back gay rights. The list goes on and on. So next time you use words you hear from fox and the radio think first and ask yourself, isn't this what we want to do as conservatives.

[zilla]

Judges are people with their own agendas and views. And the way the Supreme Court is they judge based on precedence so once an activist court makes an issue decided a particular way, future courts typically follow that ruling.

So in effect what I'm saying is that the judges can be wrong just as any other person can. Just because they rule a certain way doesn't mean they are right. Activist judges have caused more gov't intrusion than any of the so-called conservative social agenda incursions you speak of.

At one time the Supreme Court decided in the Dredd Scott case that blacks could not nor would they ever be citizens of the US. So yes, the courts can be wrong.

Maybe someday when we devolve back to the dark ages the courts will share your view. Until then, we get to live in a country free of your theocracy wishes.

[Wolvrin704]

Maybe someday when we devolve back to the dark ages the courts will share your view. Until then, we get to live in a country free of your theocracy wishes.

How do my views equate dark ages? I give you an example where the SC has proven itself to be wrong on an issue but you can't concieve that they are now, can you?

My views do not include being a theocracy despite what you think. I do not believe the gov't should be involved in religion or condone only a certain one, but I do think the members of the gov't should be allowed to voice their opinion of what they believe or have symbols of their beliefs where they work.

The basic difference between liberal views and cnservative views is that liberals think gov't is the answer for everything while conservatives believe otherwise.

By the way, if activist judges hadn't made social issues the law of the land via court rulings there wouldn't be any need for conservative judges to over turn such rulings. Using your logic the Dredd Scott decision should still be the rule of the land and later judges were being activist to have done so.

I don't know why any of us bother to debate with you. None of us are going to admit our views are wrong and neither are you. Its almost a waste of breathe to do so.

[Medic]

And everytime it goes to court the schools, etc.... are told to remove them. Time and time again the courts have ruled it is a violation of the church and state. Much like the 2nd amendment, it is a non-issue now and people that continue to ignore the rulings and display the 10 commandments,etc... are just wasting eveyones time.



Kudos to Zilla for giving some thoughtful arguments this time.

That said, your assertion that every ruling that goes to court comes out on the side of separation is only half true. Cases where land has been designated as memorial grounds or transfer of title to private entities (even leases) allows for religious displays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy

I also partially agree with Zilla on the establishment clause in the constitution. The last thing anyone should want is local or state governments actively promoting one religion over another. However, the establishment clause has been completely abused and perverted from its original spirit and intention.

Zilla while I admire you for taking the time to read and paste whatever that thing is you posted. It has some serious factual flaws. Some of his assertions are easily refuted with just a little research. The one about Pilgrims was laughable. Anyhow, most of it is history distorted to fit a viewpoint. Give the guy credit for being a passionate secularist at least.

edit: no sooner do I post this than I see 2 more posts from zilla being a douchewad, oh well at least he put forth some arguments for once.

[zilla]

My inner douchewad will always come out when you get someone like MM telling people to move if you don't like his viewpoint. Un-American on his part? "You betcha".

As I posted, we were having a good discussion until I know everything MM joined.

[The Michigan Man]

My inner douchewad will always come out when you get someone like MM telling people to move if you don't like his viewpoint. Un-American on his part? "You betcha".

As I posted, we were having a good discussion until I know everything MM joined.

Yes, stripping America of its history by sanitizing all of the govt buildings is the agenda of patriotic Americans, right? Go read what Stalin did to the Russian Orhodox church in the 1930s - churches were destroyed, priests killed, and religion purged from nearly all public forums. He had some great ideas on the separation of church and state, didn't he?

When you enlisted in the CG, you took an oath before God to defend the Constitution (which you have no clue about). I would like you to renounce your military service based upon the intermingling of church and state that you engaged in envoking God's name in taking that oath. Should the military be disbanded because God's name is used in swearing in recruits?

Also, you never answered my question from above: would you like to see all Christmas symbols removed from public display?

And how is your inner douchewad any different than your outer douchewad?

[zilla]

I am a much better American than you MM, much. I believe in the rule of law and the constitution. You believe in if it aint republican doctrine well you better move. I can't believe they let you in the military (although I think you are a liar about serving as the photo you posted showed a pencil neck wuss).


"Also, you never answered my question from above: would you like to see all Christmas symbols removed from public display?"

If it is state or federal property 100%. We true American's feel this way.


Now my question pencil neck, would you protest a Muslim giving a graduation prayer at your school or kids school? Now tell the truth a-hole. You can do it just once.

[The Michigan Man]

I am a much better American than you MM, much. I believe in the rule of law and the constitution. You believe in if it aint republican doctrine well you better move. I can't believe they let you in the military (although I think you are a liar about serving as the photo you posted showed a pencil neck wuss).


"Also, you never answered my question from above: would you like to see all Christmas symbols removed from public display?"

If it is state or federal property 100%. We true American's feel this way.


Now my question pencil neck, would you protest a Muslim giving a graduation prayer at your school or kids school? Now tell the truth a-hole. You can do it just once.

I was trying to be graceful about your CG service and let it slide earlier, but I guess that gloves are off now. Anyone who served in the CG is in no position to call me a "pencil neck". Go play Popeye and tow a lost fisherman in his rowboat back onto the shore. Any time you want to go on a 25 mile road march with a 70lb ruck on your back or on a refreshing little 10 mile run let me know, I'll show you how a real armed forces serviceman does it, you overglorified merchant marine.

[zilla]

I was trying to be graceful about your CG service and let it slide earlier, but I guess that gloves are off now. Anyone who served in the CG is in no position to call me a "pencil neck". Go play Popeye and tow a lost fisherman in his rowboat back onto the shore. Any time you want to go on a 25 mile road march with a 70lb ruck on your back or on a refreshing little 10 mile run let me know, I'll show you how a real armed forces serviceman does it, you overglorified merchant marine.

Keep dreaming pencil neck. Watching Rambo 4 times as a kid does not count as service.

[The Michigan Man]

Keep dreaming pencil neck. Watching Rambo 4 times as a kid does not count as service.

I don't blame you for posting a silly non-response. You have nothing. Now go swab that deck.

[gator]

How do my views equate dark ages? I give you an example where the SC has proven itself to be wrong on an issue but you can't concieve that they are now, can you?

My views do not include being a theocracy despite what you think. I do not believe the gov't should be involved in religion or condone only a certain one, but I do think the members of the gov't should be allowed to voice their opinion of what they believe or have symbols of their beliefs where they work.

The basic difference between liberal views and cnservative views is that liberals think gov't is the answer for everything while conservatives believe otherwise.

By the way, if activist judges hadn't made social issues the law of the land via court rulings there wouldn't be any need for conservative judges to over turn such rulings. Using your logic the Dredd Scott decision should still be the rule of the land and later judges were being activist to have done so.

I don't know why any of us bother to debate with you. None of us are going to admit our views are wrong and neither are you. Its almost a waste of breathe to do so.

WOW!!!

Zilla, I don't even think you can deny that 704's got you on your own logic here. Booomshakalaka! I presented you an argument in my last post using only my personal reasoning power. You said that conservatives want to force religion on everyone, and I reasoned out an argument where it appears to me that the conservative view actually provides more freedom to everyone, i.e., the government shall not prohibit free exercise....of anyone. All you could muster was some half-truth statement about how the courts ALWAYS rule against religious symbols. Further, I think 704's comments clearly show how dangerous it is to use a court's opinion as your basis of argument without REASONING FOR YOURSELF. I guess, that's my biggest problem with you, zilla. You just don't ever seem to think things out for yourself. In my line of work, you better get that skill down real fast, or you aren't going to make it.

To your question about muslim symbols on a courthouse lawn in my town; I wouldn't care as long as the Christian ones can be right there next to them. See how that works? More freedom for everyone instead of PHOHIBITING everyone from free expression!!! The restrictions that I could get on board with about these symbols would be whether they are an eyesore, limit the functionality or accessability of the facility, and how they are funded (private vs government). As far as your Muslim teacher question. Just because a preacher may want the ten commandments in his courtroom, I don't expect him to start preaching from the bench. That is I can respect any teacher's religion as long as it doesn't interfer with his job of teaching my child, his sole purpose is to be a teacher is not simply promote his religion and contradict what we teach our kids at home (I never knew what religion any of my teachers ever where and I imagine that's the way it should be), and he isn't telling kids to hate America. Nevertheless, I don't plan on sending my kids to public schools.

Hence, I really don't have a problem with MM's comment about telling people to get the hell out of this country....that is if they hope to sacrifice EVERYONE'S freedoms at the expense of a few. To hell with those people - not because they have a different religion than me, but because they want me to sacrifice my freedom for their sensibility. I believe I have argued correctly that the greater freedom is to give everyone EQUAL LIBERTY as opposed to EQUAL RESTRICTION, which I believe was the true intent of the first ammendment. Nevertheless, I'm sure you are already trying to look up some courtruling to the contrary.

At any rate, I am curious how you explain some of the friezes in Washington D.C. architecture that depict religious personalities? Seems the "precedent" on this, which you are so big on in the court system, favors my view on this matter. At least, that is, before your activist judges got involved. Sure, there are also plenty of pagan and Greek personalities along with the religious ones, but I believe even Mohommad is depicted on the Supreme Court building. Seems like there used to be an attitude of tolerance - the same tolerance I have expressed but you have full-heartedly rebuked. I won't go as far as saying all the founding fathers were Christians, but I believe a great many of them were diest (hard to argue that). Seems like this issue would have come up with an engraving or statue at some point even back then. Also seems like if it was such a NO-NO, that the precedent would have been set and passed down with each generation. Seems the precedent and and logical point of view is one of non-preferential treatment.

[The Michigan Man]

WOW!!!

Zilla, I don't even think you can deny that 704's got you on your own logic here. Booomshakalaka! I presented you an argument in my last post using only my personal reasoning power. You said that conservatives want to force religion on everyone, and I reasoned out an argument where it appears to me that the conservative view actually provides more freedom to everyone, i.e., the government shall not prohibit free exercise....of anyone. All you could muster was some half-truth statement about how the courts ALWAYS rule against religious symbols. Further, I think 704's comments clearly show how dangerous it is to use a court's opinion as your basis of argument without REASONING FOR YOURSELF. I guess, that's my biggest problem with you, zilla. You just don't ever seem to think things out for yourself. In my line of work, you better get that skill down real fast, or you aren't going to make it.

To your question about muslim symbols on a courthouse lawn in my town; I wouldn't care as long as the Christian ones can be right there next to them. See how that works? More freedom for everyone instead of PHOHIBITING everyone from free expression!!! The restrictions that I could get on board with about these symbols would be whether they are an eyesore, limit the functionality or accessability of the facility, and how they are funded (private vs government). As far as your Muslim teacher question. Just because a preacher may want the ten commandments in his courtroom, I don't expect him to start preaching from the bench. That is I can respect any teacher's religion as long as it doesn't interfer with his job of teaching my child, his sole purpose is to be a teacher is not simply promote his religion and contradict what we teach our kids at home (I never knew what religion any of my teachers ever where and I imagine that's the way it should be), and he isn't telling kids to hate America. Nevertheless, I don't plan on sending my kids to public schools.

Hence, I really don't have a problem with MM's comment about telling people to get the hell out of this country....that is if they hope to sacrifice EVERYONE'S freedoms at the expense of a few. To hell with those people - not because they have a different religion than me, but because they want me to sacrifice my freedom for their sensibility. I believe I have argued correctly that the greater freedom is to give everyone EQUAL LIBERTY as opposed to EQUAL RESTRICTION, which I believe was the true intent of the first ammendment. Nevertheless, I'm sure you are already trying to look up some courtruling to the contrary.

At any rate, I am curious how you explain some of the friezes in Washington D.C. architecture that depict religious personalities? Seems the "precedent" on this, which you are so big on in the court system, favors my view on this matter. At least, that is, before your activist judges got involved. Sure, there are also plenty of pagan and Greek personalities along with the religious ones, but I believe even Mohommad is depicted on the Supreme Court building. Seems like there used to be an attitude of tolerance - the same tolerance I have expressed but you have full-heartedly rebuked. I won't go as far as saying all the founding fathers were Christians, but I believe a great many of them were diest (hard to argue that). Seems like this issue would have come up with an engraving or statue at some point even back then. Also seems like if it was such a NO-NO, that the precedent would have been set and passed down with each generation. Seems the precedent and and logical point of view is one of non-preferential treatment.

Good post, Gator. That is the problem with these 1 dimensional activist atheists - they think fairness is depriving everyone of their point of view, versus attempting to be inclusive. If there was some historical reason to put Muslim or other religions symbols on government buildings, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Also, there is a common Old Testament lineage between Christianity and Islam, right?

Zilla is a hack, a brainwashed zombie pulling data from silly libbie websites like "Freedom from Religion" (he copies and pastes this garbage into his posts and then thinks he made some sort of point on his own). He thinks the founding fathers wanted to ban religious symbols, per some nonexistent Constitutional language, even though the founders referenced "God" at every possible opportunity, including it in all oaths, on government buildings, on our currency, etc. The US Supreme Court didn't even reference "separating church and state" until the 1870s.

Taking solace in the fact that your point of view happens to match the opinion de jour of the judiciary is ignorant. Courts have also upheld slavery, segregation, the seizing of Indian property, confining Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, etc. - a lot of idiots were pleased that their opinions matched their court's at the time, too.

[zilla]

And the bitter I have no voice award of the year goes to MM. I bet you have about 40 angry bumperstickers shouting your anger. Here comes MM, watchout
he is angry better listen LMFAO. Keeping churping loser.

I am a hack MM? You must be kidding. Everythin gyou post is word for word from Fox News. I watch Fox when I go to the gym at night and guess what? You are posting word for word what they said. You are a moron and a total joke.

Still waiting for you to say what branch of the military you were in. Post it now or be exposed as the liar you are.

[zilla]

"You just don't ever seem to think things out for yourself. In my line of work, you better get that skill down real fast, or you aren't going to make it. "


Real imporatnt job that lands you in a mobile home. Please keep saving the world with your important job and hailvictors posts.


"Nevertheless, I don't plan on sending my kids to public schools."

Might want to work on buying a home first big shot.


"that is if they hope to sacrifice EVERYONE'S freedoms at the expense of a few."


Simple question, are you allowed to worship your god in this country? Are you allowed to speak your god in public? Nobody is trying to take your freedoms away it is all about not pushing your views on others.

The biggest reason conservatives are a dying breed in this country is that you simply can no mind your own business. America has spoken in the last 2 elections that you have taken your "morals" too far in normal peoples lives. Normal people don't want the ten commandments on court buildings, nor prayer in school. Just because you angry, bitter, no voice or relevance losers want it does not mean the rest of noraml America does.

[The Michigan Man]

And the bitter I have no voice award of the year goes to MM. I bet you have about 40 angry bumperstickers shouting your anger. Here comes MM, watchout
he is angry better listen LMFAO. Keeping churping loser.

I am a hack MM? You must be kidding. Everythin gyou post is word for word from Fox News. I watch Fox when I go to the gym at night and guess what? You are posting word for word what they said. You are a moron and a total joke.

Still waiting for you to say what branch of the military you were in. Post it now or be exposed as the liar you are.

US Army. Now what?

99% of the bumpersticker laden garbage heaps on the road are libbie/hippy cars with peace signs, pro-choice, pro-Obama/Biden, anti-Bush/Cheney nonsense. However, like most intelligent people, I have a bumper-free vehicle.

Fox News is conservative, so therefore it is logical that my viewpoint is similar. However, you can't find one post where I copied and pasted something verbatim from their website, like you do with Freedom From Religion.com and other whacko websites you loiter at.

[zilla]

The Army, just as I expected. The Army is for people not tough enough for the Marines and not smart enough for the other branches. Wow man, the Army. My Marine family members will get a good laugh about a Army guy talking tough. :D

[The Michigan Man]

The Army, just as I expected. The Army is for people not tough enough for the Marines and not smart enough for the other branches. Wow man, the Army. My Marine family members will get a good laugh about a Army guy talking tough. :D

Is this where I get all emotional like you and send you a link about dead soldiers? You are a whimpering little girl wearing a silly CG uniform that looks like something a janitor would wear.

Walk into a VFW or Amer Legion hall (which won't have a single CG'men inside) and share your opinion about soldiers, I would pay to see that.

As far as comparing what I did to other armed forces, I can assure you that a round shot from my weapon would have ruined your day just as quickly as any Marines'.

Of course both the Marines and the soldiers alike would laugh their asses off if a dope in a CG uniform actually had the balls to try to insinuate that the CG stacks up with our respective branches in any way…

[Wolvrin704]

The Army, just as I expected. The Army is for people not tough enough for the Marines and not smart enough for the other branches. Wow man, the Army. My Marine family members will get a good laugh about a Army guy talking tough. :D

Since you laugh about Army guys I'm sure you would laugh even more at couple of my buddies that were in the Navy. Am I right. :rolleyes:

[gator]

The Army, just as I expected. The Army is for people not tough enough for the Marines and not smart enough for the other branches. Wow man, the Army. My Marine family members will get a good laugh about a Army guy talking tough. :D

Wow, where is this thread going. Personally, I don't care to make fun of any divisions of our armed forces. I do understand that there is a healthy rivalry between those who have served in these divisions, which makes for a great Army vs Navy rivalry on the football field. All I will say is that MM seems to let his own service speak for itself against anything Zilla can throw up for himself. The comments from Zilla about "My Marine family members will laugh at you" really sounds like some third grade, "Yeah, well my brother can beat up your brother." Come on, Zilla. The next thing you wil tell me is that you are related to John J. Rambo. Let this one go and go watch "The Guardian" again.