Jump to content

aramike

Members
  • Posts

    1,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aramike

  1. Holy crap. EVERY SINGLE TIME they were confronted with an allegation of wrongdoing by the "church", they would ask "what are YOUR crimes?" Good job attempting the "I know you are but what am I?" defense.
  2. quote: Originally posted by Wolferz: If your organization is on the up and up, then why would anyone be worried about someone bringing a video camera to a so-called free street festival? Unless of course they are all actually pod people, here to enslave mankind I agree. Why hide from the cameras unless you have something to hide? And I almost want to vomit at the thought of being able to buy a permit to make something that is "public", "private" - unless that area is designated as such in advance. Which would be like a park gazebo ... not a STREET.
  3. Jaguar ... dude ... please ... READ ... what I am saying... quote: THe main point of the first amendment was to make sure that the federal government could not declare a state religion, or church.Ummm, no, the main point of the First Ammendment was to establish free speech. Not allowing the state to create a REQUIRED state-sponsered CHURCH is, dude, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and is what I've been saying all along. What it has morphed into is a non-existant separation of RELIGION and state. What you're essentially trying to do is say that the separation of church and state is not actually separation of church and state. You're saying that the ammendment does not allow a state-sponsored church. I agree. And it is called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
  4. quote: First point, there is NO such separation of church and state, no such animal exists within the US constitution.Wrong. Read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." What, therefore, is "an ESTABLISHMENT of religion" if it is not a church? And, it doesn't not say "THE" establishment, it says "AN" establishment. As such, the ammendment CLEARLY creates a separation of church from state. quote: The main point of that part of the first amendment was so that the federal government could not declare a state religion, That's it, that's all. It means NOTHING else.I disagree. If that were true, why wouldn't the ammendment simply SAY that? Instead, it implies far more literally that laws cannot be made respecting a CHURCH, ergo, seperating the church from the state. quote: A separation of church and state was created whole cloth by an activist judge.This is where, again, I'm SOOO close to agreeing with you, and I can't believe you're now disagreeing with me when you agreed with the SAME points earlier. An activist judge did not create separation from church and state. What activist judges HAVE done was pervert that separation into a separation of RELIGION and state. quote: No where in the constitution is there a wall between church and state, no where.Err, the First Ammendment. I agree with what you're saying about how its been perverted, but there IS a wall between a CHURCH and the state. Liberals just think that means RELIGION and state, and that is what's wrong. quote: Don't you see the potential problem here? If we allow religion to exert too much influence isn't there a danger they will attempt to legislate? Wouldn't that be in violation of the amendment??If people of a certain belief system are elected they can legislate however they wish so long as it is legal. Why should a RELIGIOUS belief system not be allowed in and yet others be just fine? quote: I just don't think there is any way to uphold that amendment if we allow religion to become entwined with government.Religion IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN entwined with the government. The Church, however, is NOT. quote: That being said, I have no problem with individuals in the government being religious or even letting their faith influence their decisions to some degree. I just fear if we give an inch they'll take a mile and that would be very problematic.That's why we have a Constitution - to prevent anyone from taking "a mile". If you want to not allow religion into government because they may go to far, then I propose we don't allow ANYONE who believes ANYTHING into government, either. The fact is, to single out people of faith as somehow "dangerous" and to assume those who have other beliefs are somehow more trustworthy, is discriminatory and, to be honest, kind of silly. I mean, what would you be saying if people were to say that those who believe in, say, homosexuality shouldn't be permitted to govern because they might "take a mile"? I bet you'd have a different tune to sing then...
  5. My point in a nutshell: There IS a Constitutional separation betweeen church and state. There is NOT a Constitutional separation between religion and state. Think: There's a reason the ammend uses the phrase "ESTABLISHMENT of religion" and not simply "religion".
  6. OK, to add my thoughts: There IS a wall between a CHURCH and the state (read: "ESTABLISHMENT of religion"). The purpose of this wall is to prevent any legally binding INFLUENCE of a CHURCH upon the nation. HOWEVER, this does NOT bar a MEMBER of a church from making legal policy if so elected, nor does it separate symbols of religion from public property. To do so would be ludicrous - "thou shalt not kill" isn't a bad idea just because it comes from religion. The purpose of this portion of the First Ammendment is to prevent the Church from having authority over the government, and therefore the people whereas the purpose of the Constitution is to rest the seat of power WITH the people. The bottom line is that the Church is not granted legislative authority, whereas the people are, REGARDLESS of their religious viewpoints (hence: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Furthermore, as the goverment is democratically REPRESENTATIVE, the majority CAN elect to display its symbols ANYWHERE IT CHOOSES, as well as using religious influence in law making. See, too many people twist the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't really "outlaw" anything, including public display of religion. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to PROTECT the inherent rights of the MINORITY while allowing MAJORITY rule. In other words, the majority can't simply elect itself and legislate that everyone agrees. It has NOTHING to do with the church, really, when you think about it...
  7. quote: Originally posted by Jaguar: I wish everyone would just keep their religious or antireligious beliefs to themselves. This country had a major historical religious foundation, and if the atheists don't like it, they can move out, if a religious fanatic doesn't like it, they can move too. You have every right to believe as you wish, but I have every right to disagree with you, but I don't have the right to shove my beliefs down your throat, and you don't have the right to shove yours down mine. If it makes you happy, GREAT, but don't think because it makes you happy, that it will make me happy. If everyone would just tolerate others beliefs, and then leave everyone else alone, I would be one happy camper. I will FIGHT for your right to be whatever religion you wish to be, but I will fight YOU if you attempt to force your religious, OR antireligious beliefs on me as well. I agree with damned-near everything you said in this post, Jaguar. The only disagreement I *MAY* have is in leaving everyone else alone. The problem is that so many religions are partly BASED upon attempting to lead others into that system of belief. Therefore, by asking that they leave everyone else alone, you would fundamentally alter such a belief system, thereby interfering with the religion. Catch-22, right? Although, I'm fairly sure you meant: "leave me alone when I TELL you to". If that's the case, then I agree with you 100%.
  8. Ya gotta love people... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BAD...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
  9. Utter and complete garbage is the best way to describe this horrid attempt at a sci-fi, horror thriller. The performances were ho-hum, the special effects were bland, and the production had this mysterious blue-hue covering the strangest settings. The largest problem with this flick is the script. Whoever wrote it used the technique of eating alphabet soup and puking in order to find their muse. The characters are no smarter than your average 5th grader and the story is ... wait, was there supposed to be a story here? And don't expect a climax to the "story", either - there isn't one. The film just (blessedly) ends. I had some hopes for at least cheap thrills from this one, and walked away nothing but $20 lighter. 2/10
  10. "College" is any higher-learning school, including a university.
  11. A college is typically referred to as a "university" if it offers education for both undergraduate and graduate degrees.
  12. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4229146
  13. quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Why should scientology scare anyone? Does the muslim - or another other religion for that matter - scare you? C'mon, seriously. Heh.
  14. LOL! I read that aloud to my wife and at first, she thought it was serious. So, she looked over at my clubs.
  15. I used to like him. Then, all of a sudden, Cruise was bigger than his movies.
  16. Although I've rarely watched it, SG-1 was pretty good. But think: 11 seasons. It was due.
  17. quote: Originally posted by Voli0: Public School - Bad. Home School - Bad. Why? Because they both are indoctrination. In public school you are being offered state-approved indoctrination, and in home schools you are being offered parents-approved indoctrination(which can actually be a lot worse than the state-approved in reality-wise). Let them indoctrinate you I say. Bigger the lie, harder they fall. By this I mean that when someone grows up and begins to realise that he have been brainwashed(=lied to) all along, more he will lose faith in dominant system. -v VERY good "outside-the-box" post! Very succint in pointing out the issues, and I do agree with you. Now, however, what's the solution?
  18. quote: Teachers are baddly underpaid, I still think they should all strke at once and show the government just how they feel. That's an old argument that even teachers don't use anymore. Heh, in Wisconsin there's a HUGE debate raging about how OVER-compensated teachers are. They work roughly ten months out of the year, are BONUSED on anything over nine and 1/2 months, have COMPLETELY FREE healthcare (that's right, NO premiums), and, upon reaching retirement, will have over $1 MILLION in PENSION BENEFITS (yup ... they don't have to save for themselves). On the contrary, a NORMAL, educated worker doing a service for society has to PAY for health insurance, save for their OWN retirement, work on average 11 months each year, etc. Oh, and here's the BIG thing: if they don't do a good job, they can LOSE their job fairly easily (also unlike a teacher). Also, think of the BILLIONS of dollars that pay for the pensions of retirees... all that money is NOT going to students. All that, just because teachers can't be bothered to use a 401K like most of the rest of us. All that plus a starting salary of $36K (for not even a YEAR'S work) can hardly be called "underpaid".
  19. As an aside, is anyone else disturbed that this guy was flown into LA via business-class, uncuffed, having dinner and DRINKING COCKTAILS? quote: Karr left Bangkok Sunday morning surrounded by law enforcement and a swarm of journalists. He was deported from Thailand as an undesirable person, but traveled in business class sipping champagne and eating fried shrimp.
  20. It made me want to kick my own ass and blow up my house.
  21. quote: Adds Sandler, "She's the anti-Christ. She truly has the soul of a moth and the brain of a dead trout."Heh. quote: i propose a new Man Law, you cant date a girl you used to babysit unless the age difference is 5 years or less.Man law!
  22. I agree that a mandatory, QUALITY education is essential. Therefore, I can understand why Jaguar keeps his kids at home. Public schooling has become a sham of indoctrination and focus on so-called "wellness". With public schooling, education is fast becoming second to self-esteem. Sure, while it is, to a degree, important that the child has a positive self-image, the image that OTHERS have of said child will be what dictates his/her success later in life. Education goes a long way in projection this image. If school is about a child's future, it should focus on preparing children for what is to come - not coddling them. Until the public school system learns this, other alternatives should be explored. As for my children ... private school.
  23. Thanks, Darkling. I didn't mean to take so much offense, but I find it ridiculous and personal to say that my government (agree with it or not) should be executed for violating the Constitution when it TECHNICALLY is not. Also, to attempt to draw a parallel between limited redistribution of wealth and slavery is preposturous in the Nth degree. We're a country with representative government and freedom of speech. Those things don't only apply when you agree with them. Soback and I may agree that Social Security is bologna, but at least be intellectually honest when you debate it.
  24. Oh man, I HAVE to take this one on more in-depth: quote: Ignorance is not an excuse. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that can be understood by a layman.Then why are there so many Constitutional disagreements? Or, are you one of the people who believes that the right to bear arms includes nuclear weaponry? I mean, if the Constitution is so clear-cut, then how come scholars STILL can't agree on the complete meaning of the 1st Ammendment? quote: If you can't understand what they wrote, you shouldn't be working for the public. That's the SILLIEST thing I have EVER SEEN WRITTEN. Why, then, does the Supreme Court consist of MORE THAN ONE PERSON as the FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES designed it? Would that be, perhaps, because they KNEW that there would be fundamental disagreements on the premise and actionability of Constitutional issues? If the Constitution was anywhere NEAR as clear-cut as you'd make it out to be, than we wouldn't even NEED a Supreme Court to interpret it. quote: It doesn't take a genious to figure out that Social security is redestribution of wealth. Redestribution of wealth is socialism/communism, which in turn is slavery by another name.No, it's not. Slavery involves not being able to acquire ANY WEALTH WHATSOEVER for yourself. While I fundamentally disagree with MOST instances of redistributing wealth, I won't go so far as to compare it to slavery because I would be wrong to do so. quote: Taking one persons labor, and giving part of the benefits of that labor to another, is slavery, and it's unconstitutional.No, its Communism. There's a reason why there's a word for slavery and a word for communism. While I don't believe in Marxism or Maoism, I do believe that ANY nation, if it wishes to exist, must have SOME forms of communism in order to allocate resources effectively, and to keep people from dying in the streets. However, I will say that we've gone WAY TOO FAR in this nation with regards to redistributing wealth. quote: To those who say that what's best for the society can come at the cost of individual. They are forgetting that society is made up of individuals, and a society that takes away from the fundamental and self evident rights of an individual for the best of the society, is not worth living in, defending, or existing as a society. For a society it is not, it is a hive.Seriously, that is just "fluff" rhetoric. A collection of individuals is a society, or perhaps a culture, and said entities can require different resources than any single individual. Think: Joe Blow may grow his own food and have access to his own water, and therefore may not require a car or, as a result, roads. But that doesn't mean we don't build roads for the SOCIETY. quote: So, seeing how Social Security comes at the cost of Individual Security. It is a fallacy, and a violation of my rights under the Constitution.There is ABSOLUTELY NO AMMENDMENT in the Constitution to back up this absurd statement. While I agree that it is wrong, I'm not so arrogant as to act as though my disagreement is based upon the auspices of Constitional law. quote: By what right do you take away what I make, and use it for the primary benefit of another?Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution CLEARLY disagrees with you. I thought it was so easy to understand? Furthermore, read: Amendment XVI - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. I don't know what country's constitution YOU'RE reading, but it ain't the US Constitution. quote: Those who wrote, approved, and enforced that, are criminals, and have to be treated as such.First of all, the violation of Constitutional law is NOT considered a "crime". It's a civil, Constitutional matter. A "crime" is a violation of the "Criminal Code of Justice". Secondly, we have a SYSTEM (which you say you back) for taking care of violations of Constitutional rights. It does NOT include trials and executions of politicians. (or anyone else, for that matter). If you have a disagreement with the system, use the system to fight it. [ 08-19-2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]
×
×
  • Create New...