 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) [Big-Snip] (...) The modern educational system has a hundred years of programming to produce people who, like machine parts, are relatively interchangeable. One of the worst things that a school-based authority can have to deal with is a puple (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) (Even (...) news: (...) So a logical and 'common sense' statement is grounds for the liberal brain washers to harass you. It really bothers me to hear you say that you do not wish to present a well thought out opinion because of them. That is (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthy Alcohol (was: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!)
|
|
(...) I meant to get back to this before now, but here goes: (URL) that for men, up to two "drinks" per day without regard to source of alcohol is a health benefit. They say that the red wine this was once believed, but is no more, and that it's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's one of the central points for me. I'm trying to find an analogy, like the removal of an ugly but non-harmful wart, or perhaps the erasure of an unsightly (and potentially stigmatizing) birthmark, but neither of these is quite (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) I would think that if the parents were doing their job, it would be quite the opposite. By doing their job, I mean being responsible. If you have a gun in your home, it is your responsibility as a parent to educate your children in its proper (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
(...) "Want it to be" or "Make it be", I think this may be semantics. Either way, my point is that this is an established (yet evolving) community that currently accepts among its members both people who may dislike certain content and those who may (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) who (...) Interesting - and scary. (...) It was my contention that the reported shooting sprees (that I recall) were by teenagers who had access to guns at home (and some experience with them). Not sure of the causal connection, if any, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) Well, I never went on a shooting spree, but as a teen I did behave irresponsibly with guns (by the standards that most people express). And they weren't the .22 rifle that my dad had in his closet. They were used and probably stolen guns that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions: Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)? Is it a good idea to participate in a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
