U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2010, 01:25 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Voluntary is permitted. That's the point. Read the first paragraph. NO STATE LAW or SCHOOL BOARD may REQUIRE. REQUIRE removes the voluntary aspect of prayer. The commentary is interesting, but it's not qualified. The comments aren't the law. How the court interpreted the law is embodied in their decision, as explicated in the first paragraph.

Really, when a SCHOOL AUTHORITY leads the student body in prayer, the voluntary aspect of prayer is violated. It doesn't matter if 98% of the student body wants the school authority to lead them in prayer, in fact, that makes it worse. Because the 2% that don't want to participate are much more likely to be socially punished for their non-participation than if the scenario were 51% wanted it, and 49% didn't. The protection of freedom becomes more meaningful to the 2% that need their freedom protected. That's what the Bill of Rights is for. Not to protect the 98%, who don't need protection. But to protect the 2% that DO. There is no law that says any student cannot pray in school. NONE. They are free to pray, as long as they don't disrupt classrooms or other school functions. It's school. Not church. They can pray. But they have to respect the other people that are attending school.
Who and what do you need protection from? By protection don't we mean prohibit, people from the freedom to self-govern, through respect of one another? One day into the future those numbers will be reversed. (I believe your percentage numbers are a bit off now) As the Pew Reports survey, Christianity is decreasing in numbers, being replace by Islam (by my speculation), along with the birth rate of Americans is decreasing.

Government power is growing not shrinking and the self-governance of the people of America are now being regulated by interpretations of the constitution not by the common law language in which it was written.
From the time of its inception, the changes to that constitution have not been violent and glaring, but soft and subtle.

We tend to see through the glass, darkly.

The majority will be a minority in actual numbers since, but will maintain majority status for political reasoning.

Today, more and more people are pulling their children from the public schools and home-schooling them. The teachers and principles are not allowed to discipline students and the campus grounds now require police to monitor the hallways.

One day, separation of church and state, that it isn't in the constitution, will come home to roost more boldly more broadly than it has today. Although there are those who feel it now.

The ACLU Attacks King, NC and It's Citizens (http://www.onemouthoneworld.com/blog/2010/09/the-aclu-attacks-king-nc-and-its-citizens.html - broken link)

That's all,
~ bell ~

PS: This is just one amendment the constitution has been re-written to suit. Example of another:

"Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion; or than the maintaining that they have sovereign power as to taxation, would be to maintain that they have sovereign power as to everything else." Avalon Project - Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-05-2010 at 01:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2010, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Lune View Post
I think you are stepping very dangerously on the edge of the "What if" pitfall. The SC has that power, but what makes you think that it will stick? Obviously if they interpret it in such a way that angers the vast majority, then sh-- will hit the ceiling.

Back on topic, the letter was written to clarify the intent of the 1st Amendment since, obviously, it must have been abused by churches back then due to its ambiguity. And English back then was not written as clear-cut as it is now, hence the reason why we have the SC to interpret them.

Plus, times change and laws change. Laws are made to fit the current ideals of society. The Constitution never did say it was not okay to own slaves. The Declaration of Independence said "all men are equal", but it didn't apply to black people or women. If I said I thought black people should be forced back into slavery because the Constitution and DoI never gave them rights and that it was clear-cut, I would be branded as a racist and locked in a jail for hate crime nowadays.
If we take into account that the letter was written in an election year Votes, do count.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2010, 07:32 AM
 
40,092 posts, read 24,341,034 times
Reputation: 12616
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Who and what do you need protection from? By protection don't we mean prohibit, people from the freedom to self-govern, through respect of one another? One day into the future those numbers will be reversed. (I believe your percentage numbers are a bit off now) As the Pew Reports survey, Christianity is decreasing in numbers, being replace by Islam (by my speculation), along with the birth rate of Americans is decreasing.

Government power is growing not shrinking and the self-governance of the people of America are now being regulated by interpretations of the constitution not by the common law language in which it was written.
From the time of its inception, the changes to that constitution have not been violent and glaring, but soft and subtle.

We tend to see through the glass, darkly.

The majority will be a minority in actual numbers since, but will maintain majority status for political reasoning.

Today, more and more people are pulling their children from the public schools and home-schooling them. The teachers and principles are not allowed to discipline students and the campus grounds now require police to monitor the hallways.

One day, separation of church and state, that it isn't in the constitution, will come home to roost more boldly more broadly than it has today. Although there are those who feel it now.

The ACLU Attacks King, NC and It's Citizens (http://www.onemouthoneworld.com/blog/2010/09/the-aclu-attacks-king-nc-and-its-citizens.html - broken link)

That's all,
~ bell ~

PS: This is just one amendment the constitution has been re-written to suit. Example of another:

"Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion; or than the maintaining that they have sovereign power as to taxation, would be to maintain that they have sovereign power as to everything else." Avalon Project - Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791
Your responses are completely incoherent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2010, 07:38 AM
 
40,092 posts, read 24,341,034 times
Reputation: 12616
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
If we take into account that the letter was written in an election year Votes, do count.
The election was in 1800. The letter was written in 1802.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2010, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The election was in 1800. The letter was written in 1802.
It was written in 1801, published in the newspaper(s) 1802. I may have miss read and I haven't the link to the research so as to verify the authors words. However, this much I am certain, he was selling them something.

Jefferson after all was a politician.
Shoot the whole idea to have a constitution had to be sold to the American people (the federalists papers), they were not buying it. (do I see the word minority there, hum, yes I do believe I do)
Quote:
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
WallBuilders - Historical Writings - Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

PS: nope you're right it was published years later.

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-05-2010 at 12:22 PM.. Reason: ps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2010, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Your responses are completely incoherent.
I'm sorry, you did not understand. Perhaps it is for the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2010, 01:16 PM
 
40,092 posts, read 24,341,034 times
Reputation: 12616
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
I'm sorry, you did not understand. Perhaps it is for the best.
Placing the fault with me. A truly Christian thing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,749 posts, read 4,435,415 times
Reputation: 1404
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Placing the fault with me. A truly Christian thing to do.
Like I said, it's for the best. ~ i shake my head ~ I can't make it coherent for you, can I? You told me I was inept at getting my point across to you.

PS: Take a load of DC and Have a good day.

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-06-2010 at 10:27 AM.. Reason: ps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top