|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
Darth Liberus 
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,09:17 |
|
   |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 June 2002,09:28) | | according to this, public schools, social security, and the post office should be considered unconstitutional. |
A long quote, but one worth reading...
| Quote | From the US Constitution:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
|
Well, there's one down, you dumbass. Now show me where the Constitution bans public schools and social security, given that it explicity gives Congress power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
I've also heard plenty of Libertarians claim that it bans a standing army. Can you explain why it explicitly allows them as well?
Do you people ever actually read the Constitution, or do you just make it up as you go along?
Edited by Darth Liberus on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
ic0n0
I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds
Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,10:53 |
|
 |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 June 2002,17:10) | | Show me where the supreme court has actually made a judgement saying that the first amendment directly means the seperation of church and state. |
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
333 U.S. 203
PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. McCOLLUM
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DIST. NO. 71, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILL, et al.
No. 90.
Argued Dec. 8, 1947.
Decided March 8, 1948.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. [ McCollum v. Board of Education 333 U.S. 203 (1948) ] [333 U.S. 203 , 204]
Mr. Walter F. Dodd, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Messrs. Owen Rall, of Chicago, Ill., and John L. Franklin, of Champaign, Ill., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case relates to the power of a state to utilize its tax- supported public school system in aid of religious [333 U.S. 203 , 205] instruction insofar as that power may be restricted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.
The appellant, Vashti McCollum, began this action for mandamus against the Champaign Board of Education in the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Illinois. Her asserted interest was that of a resident and taxpayer of Champaign and of a parent whose child was then enrolled in the Champaign public schools. Illinois has a compulsory education law which, with exceptions, requires parents to send their children, aged seven to sixteen, to its tax-supported public schools where the children are to remain in attendance during the hours when the schools are regularly in session. Parents who violate this law commit a misdemeanor punishable by fine unless the children attend private or parochial schools which meet educational standards fixed by the State. District boad of education are given general supervisory powers over the use of the public school buildings within the school districts. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, 123, 301 ( 1943).
Appellant's petition for mandamus alleged that religious teachers, employed by private religious groups, were permitted to come weekly into the school buildings during the regular hours set apart for secular teaching, and then and there for a period of thirty minutes substitute their religious teaching for the secular education provided under the compulsory education law. The petitioner charged that this joint public- school religious-group program violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The prayer of her petition was that the Board of Education be ordered to 'adopt and enforce rules and regulations prohibiting all instruction in and teaching of all religious education in all public schools in Champaign District Number 71, * * * and in all public school houses and buildings in said district when occupied by public schools.' [333 U.S. 203 , 206] The board first moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that under Illinois law appellant had no standing to maintain the action. This motion was denied. An answer was then filed, which admitted that regular weekly religious instruction was given during school hours to those pupils whose parents consented and that those pupils were released temporarily from their regular secular classes for the limited purpose of attending the religious classes. The answer denied that this coordinated program of religious instructions violated the State or Federal Constitution. Much evidence was heard, findings of fact were made, after which the petition for mandamus was denied on the ground that the school's religious instruction program violated neither the federal nor state constitutional provisions invoked by the appellant. On appeal the State Supreme Court affirmed. 396 Ill. 14, 71 N.E.2d 161. Appellant appealed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a), and we noted probable jurisdiction. .
The appellee presses a motion to dismiss the appeal on several grounds, the first of which is that the judgment of the State Supreme Court does not draw in question the 'validity of a statute of any State' as required by 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a). This contention rests on the admitted fact that the challenged program of religious instruction was not expressly authorized by statute. But the State Supreme Court has sustained the validity of the program on the ground that the Illinois statutes granted the board authority to establish such a program. This holding is sufficient to show that the validity of an Illinois statute was drawn in question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a). Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 258 , 202. A second ground for the motion to dismiss is that the appellant lacks standing to maintain the action, a ground which is also without merit. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 , 443, 445, 464, 978, 986, 122 A.L.R. 695. [333 U.S. 203 , 207] A third ground for the motion is that the appellant failed properly to present in the State Supreme Court her challenge that the state program violated the Federal Constitution. But in view of the express rulings of both state courts on this question, the argument cannot be successfully maintained. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Although there are disputes between the parties as to various inferences that may or may not properly be drawn from the evidence concerning the religious program, the following facts are shown by the record without dispute. 1 In 1940 interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths formed a voluntary association called the Champaign Council on Religious Education. They obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public schoolp upils in grades four to nine inclusive. Classes were made up of pupils whose parents signed printed cards requesting that their children be permitted to attend;2 they were held weekly, thirty minutes for [333 U.S. 203 , 208] the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expense to the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. 3 The classes were taught in three [333 U.S. 203 , 209] separate religious groups by Protestant teachers,4 Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although for the past several years there have apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. Classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building. Students who did not choose to take the religious instruction were not released from public school duties; they were required to leave their classrooms and go to some other place in the school building for pursuit of their secular studies. On the other hand, students who were released from secular study for the religious instructions were required to be present at the religious classes. Reports of their presence or absence were to be made to their secular teachers. 5
The foregoing facts, without reference to others that appear in the record, show the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education. The operation of the state's compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released [333 U.S. 203 , 210] in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 . There we said: 'Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. 6 Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state nor [333 U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S., at page 511 of 67 S.Ct. The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State. They disagreed as to the facts shown by the record and as to the proper application of the First Amendment's language to those facts.
Recognizing that the Illinois program is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments if we adhere to the views expressed both by the majority and the minority in the Everson case, counsel for the respondents challenge those views as dicta and urge that we reconsider and repudiate them. They argue that historically the First Amendment was intended to forbid only government preference of one religion over another, not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions. In addition they ask that we distinguish or overrule our holding in the Everson case that the Fourteenth Amendment made the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment applicable as a prohibition against the States. After giving full consideration to the arguments presented we are unable to accept either of these contentions.
To hold that a state cannot consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not, as counsel urge, manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free [333 U.S. 203 , 212] exercise of religion. For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment had erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.
Here not only are the state's taxsupported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the state's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.
The cause is reversed and remanded to the State Supreme Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the following opinion, in which Mr. Justice JACKSON, Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE and Mr. Justice BURTON join. *
We dissented in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 512, because in our view the Constitutional principle requiring separation of Church and State compelled invalidation of the ordinance sustained by the majority. Illinois has here authorized the commingling of sectarian with secular instruction in the public schools. The Constitution of the United States forbids this.
|
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
374 U.S. 203
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. v. SCHEMPP ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 142.
Argued February 27-28, 1963.
Decided June 17, 1963. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 119, Murray et al. v. Curlett et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, argued February 27, 1963.
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day - even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227.
201 F. Supp. 815, affirmed.
228 Md. 239, 179 A. 2d 698, reversed.
|
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
393 U.S. 97
EPPERSON ET AL. v. ARKANSAS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. 7.
Argued October 16, 1968.
Decided November 12, 1968.
Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum. Held: The statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces the First Amendment's prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pp. 102-109.
(a) The Court does not decide whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since, whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law conflicts with the Establishment Clause. Pp. 102-103.
(b) The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis. Pp. 103, 107-109.
© The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Pp. 103-107.
(d) A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment. P. 107.
(e) The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality. P. 109. |
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
449 U.S. 39
STONE ET AL. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY
No. 80-321.
Decided November 17, 1980
Held:
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that "[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function. Cf. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 . That the posted copies are financed by voluntary private contributions is immaterial, for the mere posting under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the state government that the Establishment Clause prohibits. Nor is it significant that the Ten Commandments are merely posted rather than read aloud, for it is no defense to urge that the religious practices may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment.
Certiorari granted; 599 S. W. 2d 157, reversed.
|
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
472 U.S. 38
WALLACE, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, ET AL. v. JAFFREE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 83-812.
Argued December 4, 1984
Decided June 4, 1985 *
In proceedings instituted in Federal District Court, appellees challenged the constitutionality of, inter alia, a 1981 Alabama Statute ( 16-1-20.1) authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer." Although finding that 16-1-20.1 was an effort to encourage a religious activity, the District Court ultimately held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a State from establishing a religion. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held:
Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment. Pp. 48-61.
(a) The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55.
(b) One of the well-established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Establishment Clause is that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 -613. The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion. Pp. 55-56.
© The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1's purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose. In particular, the statements of 16-1-20.1's sponsor in the legislative record and in his [472 U.S. 38, 39] testimony before the District Court indicate that the legislation was solely an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to the public schools. Moreover, such unrebutted evidence of legislative intent is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship between 16-1-20.1 and two other Alabama statutes - one of which, enacted in 1982 as a sequel to 16-1-20.1, authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a prescribed prayer, and the other of which, enacted in 1978 as 16-1-20.1's predecessor, authorized a period of silence "for meditation" only. The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion. Pp. 56-61.
705 F.2d 1526 and 713 F.2d 614, affirmed. |
| Quote | U.S. Supreme Court
EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
482 U.S. 578
EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 85-1513.
Argued December 10, 1986
Decided June 19, 1987
Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A [482 U.S. 578, 579] law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counter-balancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. Pp. 586-589. |
--------------
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,12:51 |
|
|
so, uh, CK... how are you enjoying your new asshole?
is there some sort of award we can give ic0n0 for that? he deserves it.
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,15:03 |
|
|
Ic0n0 deserves an "A" for effort. Well done. Please, where did you find these? I'd like a link, so I can have it for later CK B347D0\/\/NZ.
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
ic0n0
I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds
Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,18:25 |
|
|
Like I have said before the concept of separation of church and state by means of the establishment clause in the first amendment is well established.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/toccourt.htm the source is Questionable but the cases and Rulings are not.
--------------
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,19:40 |
|
|
Congratz everyone. We won this debate and we did it by presenting good sources and using logical reasoning. I feel proud of this thread.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
C_Puppy
Like sum o' DEES NUTZ
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: Sep. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 01 2002,02:38 |
|
|
CatKnight...... You are ignorant and a moron to boot!
The founding fathers declared every man to be equal in the constitution, while most of them owned slaves. So you are saying that they wanted every white man to be equal, you jackass? Times have changed since the wording of the constitution has been written, but even tho the founders didn't live up to their own bill of rights, it is still upheld as if they did. Same should go for Church, and "Faith-based" Initiatives
And Clinton had 300 appointees, but most were blocked-- hence why there are so many openings for President Moron to appoint now.
Come on do you really want Ashcroft to start singing more of his own personally composed Hymns in press conferences-- my father is a Methodist minister and he said he doesn't think he has heard worse. Imagine that multiplied but a factor of 10 or so.
So you think it is stupid to let this minority mess up the two or three words in a bunch of oaths--- well so long as the KKK's rights to assembly and free speech are protected(they ain't a majority CK, just so you know), and the rights of the NRA are protected-- I don't see why a liberal -(even as extreme as this guy seems to be) can't fight for his rights too, even if the rest of the country doesn't like his stance on god.
Sorry guys, I know the arugment is already won, but most of the people I talked to today who I had a higher opinion of on this subject let me down-- and I didn't have time to respond, So I thought I owed it to myself to respond to CK
Edited by C_Puppy on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
"We're all monkeys......HEY! Get Outta my CHAIR!" - 12 Monkeys
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
forumwhore
Fear Me, I Am Change.
Group: Members
Posts: 3282
Joined: Dec. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 01 2002,03:29 |
|
|
CatKnight.
You can bend the entire thread if you stop and think before you hate someone back.
Think; you have every single poster's attention here.
This is an on-topic thread, very good.
I would, that you would, try to be more manipulative sometimes.
Right now, say something they all agree on and suddenly they could like you.
--------------
Posting from; El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
DRUFER
bleh.
Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: Aug. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 01 2002,03:55 |
|
|
| Quote (forumwhore @ 30 June 2002,19:29) | | Right now, say something they all agree on and suddenly they could like you. |
I dont think that CK is trying to be liked, ed.
--------------
I need a new sig.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
forumwhore
Fear Me, I Am Change.
Group: Members
Posts: 3282
Joined: Dec. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 01 2002,04:14 |
|
|
That's what I don't get. Diplomacy is a foreign word for him and if he could just seduce and cajole a little bit, he could get more support.
I'm a lesbian now, so I'm off to pinkworld
--------------
Posting from; El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
