Features

Ronnie Raygun · #26

A Christian wouldn't say such things.

When I get a break...I'll break it down for those of you who wish to make up your own version of the law.

mburbank · #27

But if Proto were a public school teacher, you would support his right to lead his class in that prayer, becuase that's what the law means. Right?

It's a yes or no question, black or white,

WOULD YOU SUPPORT HIS RIGHT OR NOT?!

Protoclown · #28

Yeah, Ronnie. If you ever have children and they go to school and are taught history by a Satanist, who wants to lead their class in a Satanic prayer, then by your version of the law, the teacher would be prefectly able to do it.

Ronnie Raygun · #29

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

kellychaos · #30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

Yeah, if it was a perochial school of satanists. Really!! Are you still not getting this? :/

Ronnie Raygun · #31

"Let's break down the first amendment kid (Raygun) into elements, shall we?"

You can try, but I will present a better job of it.

"1. Congress shall make no law - that means no state/federal action imposing an affirmative duty on anyone, or prohibiting something as criminal." - Punk

"First, some common sense and the dictionary, in which we can all find a common reference to the words themselves. What do they mean?

Congress: Common sense. We know who this is. This is the body of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government that propose new laws in the form of Bills. Our elected representatives.

shall make no law: Common sense again. That's pretty easy to understand as well. No law means no law - Not any, not one, none. There's nothing ambiguous about that. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law (about something). About what?" - Buck

"2. respecting the establishment of religion - that means supporting religion" - Punk

"respecting: With respect to. In respect of. Regarding. Simple. Regarding something. Regarding what? Now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something). Not only something in particular, but even something in respect to (that something). What is that something?

an establishment of: This is not a reference to a place, like a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment. It is not a reference to a building, not even a church building. It is the condition or fact of being established. In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

religion: Notice it does not say church. It does not say a religion. It does not say a particular religion. It does not say one religion over others. It is a single word: Religion. What is religion? Here it is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It is all-inclusive." - Buck

"3. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - prohibiting someone from practicing their religion"

Exactly, and that's exactly what the gov't does under the guise of "seperation of church and state".

"Summary: the gov't can't prohibit you or make you practice religion. So go practice, but you can't force anyone else to join you by state action - state action would be schools, teachers, politicians, and the anyone else on income paid through taxes"

You're right. I never said anything about forcing anyone to pray. It fact, that's impossible.

The forefathers were smart enough to say what they meant. Stop trying to read something else into it. They understood the importance of being very clear in their statements afterall, they were masters of the english language.

Visit here.

Just read it and find a flaw.

http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/1stamendment.htm

kellychaos · #32

Bleh! ... Diarhea ... you're making my common sense hurt ... it IS simply NOT that difficult to understand ... really. :/

Ronnie Raygun · #33

Apparently it is for some of you.

punkgrrrlie10 · #34

You do realize I am in law school and my break down is taken directly from supreme court decisions dating back to the founding forefathers genius.

And your link is to someone's opinion. Not going to have much precedent when interpreting the ACTUAL law as opposed to Ronnie Raygun law. And to say it's liberal or conservative interpretation is Bull basically b/c the supreme court we have right now is the most conservative court that has been seen in years and they are striking this crap down left and right.

Jeanette X · #35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

If there were Satanist students in the class that wanted to pray with the satanist teacher, that would not interfere with the first amendment.

So I take it you wouldn't mind you had a Christian child in that class, and she asked the entire class (all Satanists except for your child in this scenario) to stand up and pray to the dark lord?
You really would not mind a teacher led prayer to Satan with the entire class participating?

Ronnie Raygun · #36

"You do realize I am in law school and my break down is taken directly from supreme court decisions dating back to the founding forefathers genius." - Punk

I don't what anyone else has said except for the forefathers. We are not talking about a few liberal judges reinventing the law. That has already been established. ....... try to catch up..... . We are talking about the intentions of the forefathers who were masters of the english language and meant exactly what they wrote. Once again, let's go over what the forefathers said.

.......................

"Congress: Common sense. We know who this is. This is the body of men and women we elect to represent us in the Federal Government that propose new laws in the form of Bills. Our elected representatives.

shall make no law: Common sense again. That's pretty easy to understand as well. No law means no law - Not any, not one, none. There's nothing ambiguous about that. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law (about something). About what?" - Buck

"respecting: With respect to. In respect of. Regarding. Simple. Regarding something. Regarding what? Now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something). Not only something in particular, but even something in respect to (that something). What is that something?

an establishment of: This is not a reference to a place, like a bar or a restaurant you might call an establishment. It is not a reference to a building, not even a church building. It is the condition or fact of being established. In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

religion: Notice it does not say church. It does not say a religion. It does not say a particular religion. It does not say one religion over others. It is a single word: Religion. What is religion? Here it is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It is all-inclusive." - Buck

..............................

"And your link is to someone's opinion."

Yes, and I happen to share it, and you have your own....so what?

"Not going to have much precedent when interpreting the ACTUAL law as opposed to Ronnie Raygun law."

It's not my law. It the law of the land so say the forefathers not some liberal activist judge who wants to re-invent it.

"And to say it's liberal or conservative interpretation is Bull basically b/c the supreme court we have right now is the most conservative court that has been seen in years and they are striking this crap down left and right."

It's just now gotten to the point where it's moderate. If Bush stays in office until 2008, we'll have a hispanic Conservative on the court that will sway the balance towards what the forefathers intended.

VinceZeb · #37

I'd rather stay out of this, but the way liberal laws are passed are by judges (Roe vs Wade is a HUGE example of this) instead of already protected by law.

Conseratives respect the Constitution and Libertarians go by what it says pretty much no matter what. They don't need slanted judges to rule for whats already there. Liberals need to, as they do with anything they touch, alter and change the meanings.

Wasn't it Algore that says the Constitution was a living document?

Ronnie Raygun · #38

Yeah!

Which means it's O.K. to change the things that make this country great.

Libs want to defeat what makes America great.

Jeanette X · #39

You still haven't answered my question Ronnie.

punkgrrrlie10 · #40

I suggest both of you look at the composition of the supreme court right now and the decisions they've handed down on the 1st amendment b/c you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

VinceZeb · #41

Actually, I DO know what I am talking about, and I don't need to go to law school to know about the law. Considering the fact the church vs state debate is something that I consider a vast source of information and views, I study it. But what I said is the truth.

Govt cant respect an establishment of religion. If a religion is established as being a part of the govt, that is illegal. But the govt can not infringe on my right to be Roman Catholic.

The govt stays out of religion. That was the whole point of the article, because the Church of England was made a STATE church by King Henry VIII because the Pope would not grant him a divorce from his wife because she would not produce a male heir. Our founders wanted whoever lived in the country to be able to worship however they wanted, but would not infringe on those rights. They would also not regonize a state religion. That is what it says. You can examine it all you want. Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

mburbank · #42

Vince!! You're Roman Catholic? What do you think of your air head pussy Popes anti war stance? Isn't it rough on you disagreeing with him when he's Christs Viccar on earth?

And Naldo. I am shocked to find you endorce Satanist Prayer in our schools.

Bennett · #43

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Our founding fathers PRAYED during sessions of govt. Go back in time and tell them that they were wrong, please. And while your back there, pick me up some cheap gold and other precious metals.

Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine.

kellychaos · #44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

In this case, by law. So now we have, Our elected representatives will not make any law regarding (something) that will establish (that something) by law. What is that something?

Here is the crux of it. School districts have elected school boards. Could that be an elected representative to which the refer? OK, iffy to some people but I believe they do fit the definition of elected representative. Teachers are not elected but are state employees and do respresent the government and they are, to some degree, under the regulations put forth by the school board (elected representatives). When they talk about establishing a religion one interpretation of this could be that the teacher, as a representative of the government, cannot introduce lessons which would instill in the minds (establish) of students favortism of ANY religion. In other words, to be neutral in that regard because it is not a part of education unless you are at a parochial school that endorses THAT religion. Additionally, you know as well as I do that if public school teachers started talking about the Jewish, Muslim, or even pagan religions during the time the children were at grade school age, the ultra-conservatives would have a hissy fit. Thusly, the schools are already religiously slanted by ommission ... that's certainly establishing something in the children's heads, don't you think? Add to that national christian holidays which they decorate public schools with every year (Easter, Christmas, ect). I have yet to see a Chanuka decoration in a public school. I have yet to see a school teach philosophy and/or classical Greek logic at the grade school level. It's not religious but it may actually lead to some religious questions that some adults can't answer and we can't have that. Can you see why people of other religions might feel shat upon Ronnie? Schools are already Christian skewed. You either have all religions represented if you inisist on religious education or none and since the Constitution says not to establish any religion, my vote would be an interpretation of NONE ... neutral ... NOW do you get it?

P.S. I hate you

punkgrrrlie10 · #45

Quote:

So if you believe in seperation of church and state (which is not a quote of the forefathers that yoiu claim to support) to the extent that people cannot have a public prayer at a football game, you support putting limits on peoples free speech.

Since the Congress has made no law establishing a prayer in public schools it should be allowed.

I think you are missing the point of practical application here. In order to allow prayer in a public setting, a time would have to be instituted in order to have it, thus enacting and having state action. A kid who doesn't want to take his math test would basically say "oh yeah, I have to pray right now" and that disrupts the process of actual learning which the state is charged with doing in a public education system. THat's what people are paying their taxes for. If people want their kids to pray so badly, they send them to private schools.

And it's nice that you agree w/that person's OPINION, and that it reflects your OPINION, but that doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation of the 1st amendment nor the application of it to the states through the 14th. You can think that burning babies is a great thing, but that doesn't make it law.

VinceZeb · #46

Quote:

Yes, and pick up some slaves because guess what, the founding fathers had those too!!! Times change drastically, and to believe that we are unable to change or reinterpret laws written 200 years ago to adjust them to those times is assinine.

So what you are saying is that the Bill of Rights, as per Algore, are a "living document", which means it can change? Well, lets change it that we take away your freedom to dissent because it's bad for the Bush admin. Lets take away the freedom of religion from Muslims, because up to 10% of them want to kill us. Lets use the Patriot Act to take away our privacy. See where this is going? Down a road to a communist state at the extreme level of change.

And that 2nd Amendment, its just for barbarians. We have "grown past" and "evolved" as a society, so we dont need guns for war. Guns are BAD!

Now of course, the taking away of guns is what allowed Chairman Mao to do his "Great Leap Foward" and re-educate the masses of China. Killing many due to violence and starvation, btw,but at least they didnt have those guns that are guarneteed to us by a dusty 200+ year old rule that should be changed.

VinceZeb · #47

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions. I REALLY should know where this is in there, considering I studied it for two years before I decided not to become a priest. Guess Ill have to look it up on line again or drag out my copy.

kellychaos · #48

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yes max, the Pope is against the war. The pope always has to promote peace that is why he is the Pope. But in the Catechism of the Church, this war with Iraq falls under the Just War provisions.

ALL Popes are ALWAYS against war and the would NEVER endorse a war against muslims.

P.S. Just a little fuel for the fire. Y'all are welcome to take it from here.

mburbank · #49

Okay, forgive me if your resume is starting to strecth credability, here, Vince...

You studied to be a priest
You had a beautiful black girlfriend
You have a good chance to be an officer on a nuclear submarine
You have an offer from a chembio unit...

Since you studied to be a priest, shouldn't your disagreement with the Pope over the 'just' nature of this war be more meaningful for you? I mean, it's not like the Pope is a kind of "Agree with me or don't as far as interpretation goes, I mean, sure, I'm the Pope, but hey, it's free country."

Not that you can't have a different opinion, lots of Catholics I know differ with the Pope here and there about, say, Homosexuality and Abortion Rights and such, but even they don't say

"Oh, sure he SAYS that, he HAS to He's the POPE! But it' not a very big deal"

Did this differing with the Pope cause you to loose any sleep or question your judgement at all, or examine it? And how do you find your desire for "CRAZY motherfucker" generals making the enemy "Shit in their Pants" squares with your Catholascism. Your kind of a
Crusades type catholic, aren't you? Are you going to get off the bus there, opr ride it all the way to "Inquisition" type Catholic?