Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:41:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
785 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > [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.
>
>
> 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 that if we all obey the law, we don't infringe on others
> (in my perfect rose-coloured glassed world, the law is there to cover such
> contingencies where people infringe on other peoples rights and freedoms--no
> more than that ;) )
>
> If a law is unjust, then there are ways and means *within* the law to deal
> with such contingencies--laws are written for the time they are written
> in--as time passes, situations change and laws have to adapt to the changing
> times--but that's a tangent...
>
> So you are part of a well regulated militia are you? That's the only way
> you should have a gun--if you're not part of the militia, then the 2nd
> ammendment doesn't apply to you.
The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being
nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.
The whole well regulated militia part was there so people would know why we
have the right to bear arms (and not just assume we are gun wielding maniacs.)
It is NOT as a restriction on that right.
>
> > [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.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> > 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
>
> Again, agreed.
Ok then.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
