Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:56:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
820 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
>
> 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 as long as it never infringes on other peoples beliefs. Your
> non-belief in any god has absolutely no bearing on my belief in God.
I absolutely agree with this.
[snip]
> > Exactly! If the Congress had done the right thing, it never would have
> > issued its endorsement of religion in the first place, and think of the
> > money that would have been saved! The problem occurred because in 1954 the
> > Congress stepped in where it shouldn't have (believe it or not).
>
> Agreed, but when good politicians do what they consider good things for good
> reasons at the time... look at the 2nd ammendment for what may happen years
> down the road when new situations and different worldviews arise--what was
> once a good idea, now becomes vague, disconcerting, derisive and causes no
> end of yapping from all sides--times change and we should be adaptable and
> not be beholden to something that was written in a time that isn't today.
Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental
right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let
me put it this way (again); A politician can not infringe upon the rights of
the people so long as the people can shoot said politician for trying.
[snip]
> Now that is a point worth making, and that is what I surmized from your
> original post, but it wasn't totally clear, though looking at my post, it
> wasn't clear that I support the official removal of 'under God' from the
> pledge, so my bad too.
>
> It is now stated and I wholeheartedly agree with you--we need consistancy
> with rulings, and the bias of a lifestyle should not be the defining
> factor--if something is found unconstitutional, that unconstitutional ruling
> should be supported, when the ruling is in favour of your personal beliefs
> *as well as* when the ruling goes against your personal beliefs.
When the Pledge issue first started I was indifferent to the whole thing,
thinking it was largely irrelevant. Having reasearched and actually thought
about it I realize that this is a serious violation of the 1st amendment. It
should never have been enacted in the first place. So I agree that 'under God'
should be removed. That would not affect those that do believe in God but
leaving 'under God' is a serious affront to those that do not believe in God.
As far as the school club, why should any 'optional' activity be disallowed
because of religion (or lack there of as far as the oppisite viewpoint goes)
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
