NationStates Jolt Archive

America has a thing called seperation between Religion and state. In creating this law, America now has judges that could marry people. Marriage is a religous thing so America hands off. America you can't change religions to make homosexuals marry. Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit. No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are. Saying you are gay and marching down the streets in a parade is the equavalence of asking an old woman who all her partners were. (This was inspired by the O'Reily Factor).

America's Declaration of independance and constition is not being taught to some californians because it mentions God. So if they can't teach these important documents then its null and thus America the Land of the "Free" would be part of England once again.

Finally the freedoms:

Freedom of speech, press and religion are being oppressed. The bill of rights specifacally say freedom of speech and press but i can't slander some one or say fire in a movie theater as i also can only report the truth. See above for
freedom of religion.

Right to bare arms. No not the right to wear short sleave shirts as said in hysteria but the right to own a weapon. Now this law is nulled and void if and only if the laws continue. For example lets say Billy a kid of 5 wants to buy a Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R). Now accordng to the bill of rights, Billy is allowed to buy the weapon if the vendor doesn't refuse service. According to our laws, there are age limits, a waiting period, a background check and restrictions.

I forgot most of the others but now starting at nine.

This right gives all other freedoms that may not be listed. This can be a little confusing. First, the right has to not be listed and rational. For instance you don't have the right to arrest some one who has a weapon as mentioned in the second amendment. So according to the nineth amendmant, do we have the right to cede? The answer no as demostrated by the civil war. But the main question is do i have the right to kill or do whatever i please. The answer isn't clear but some people might say yes.

I might have forgotten something so I will just end this.

I am not responsible for any of your actions or anything that may have resulted from you reading this as you are an intelligent individual and can make your own decisions based on your rationality or sound mind.

This is not to anger any Americans as I too am an American.

This is not an antimessage but just to inform.

Don't look for me.

:fluffle: :Sniper:

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, and delusional.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you. You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need. But we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government-run health care.
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX
You don't have the right to a job. All of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times. But we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

You know, it'd help your case if you actually tried to know what you're talking about.

Right to bare arms. No not the right to wear short sleave shirts as said in hysteria but the right to own a weapon. Now this law is nulled and void if and only if the laws continue. For example lets say Billy a kid of 5 wants to buy a Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R). Now accordng to the bill of rights, Billy is allowed to buy the weapon if the vendor doesn't refuse service. According to our laws, there are age limits, a waiting period, a background check and restrictions.
Actually, the Constitution doesn't apply to children under the age of 18. Sucks, eh?

We, the sensible people of the United States, [Bill of Non-Rights].
That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh did.

yes

Freakin awesome.

America has a thing called seperation between Religion and state. In creating this law, America now has judges that could marry people. Marriage is a religous thing so America hands off. America you can't change religions to make homosexuals marry. Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit. No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are. Saying you are gay and marching down the streets in a parade is the equavalence of asking an old woman who all her partners were. (This was inspired by the O'Reily Factor).
Back off Bible thumper. What makes you think you guys own marraige? The concept predates all current religions. It is a social construct. Sorry but you guys don't get to claim "Dibs" on this one.


O'Reily's an idiot, you should pick better role models.

I smell a liberal weenier.

Back off Bible thumper. What makes you think you guys own marraige? The concept predates all current religions. It is a social construct. Sorry but you guys don't get to claim "Dibs" on this one.


O'Reily's an idiot, you should pick better role models.
Chill. Enough with the ad hominem attacks.

Besides, who would you prefer as a role model?

You? Learn to spell.

FYI, "seperation of church and state" isn't in the constitution. It's a phrase used by Jefferson, writing to some Baptists who were concerned that the USG would set up something as state religion.

The phrase that IS in the Con. is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Translated, that means "Congress won't set up one religion as the only legal religion, as most European nations had." It says nothing about "Congress shall quake in fear at the slightest hint of a mention of G**, as even the lowest clerk in a non-congressional body using the aforementioned word will be prosecuted to an insane extent by an organization proclaiming civil liberties, but in reality only supports those that it agrees with, not ones such as the right to keep and bear arms." Essentially the reason this was in the Con. was that it would have been impossible to organize any kind of state religion anywhere but in a couple of states (Mass. was one, I forgot the other) so they just said that there would be no prefered religion at all.

Now you my friend, Need major help... Marriage isnt 'religion' its when two people love eachother, And want to make things more 'official' EVEN when you get married, You need a marriage thingy, So it dont matter... Religion is nothing but a book, With old things in it... I dont see Jesus down here agreeing with you, Or disagreeing with you... Let things be and go on with your own buisness...

Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit. No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are.

By that logic:

Not letting straight people in the boy scouts is legit. No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are.

Saying you are gay and marching down the streets in a parade is the equavalence of asking an old woman who all her partners were.

Discriminating against gays is the equivalence of throwing people in jail because they're left handed.

(This was inspired by the O'Reily Factor).

Oh. I see.

That sounds like something Rush Limbaugh did.


Twas a Libertarian, and it would piss Limbaugh off...

Government is just pointless anyway you look at it.

America has a thing called seperation between Religion and state. In creating this law, America now has judges that could marry people. Marriage is a religous thing so America hands off. America you can't change religions to make homosexuals marry. Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit. No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are. Saying you are gay and marching down the streets in a parade is the equavalence of asking an old woman who all her partners were. (This was inspired by the O'Reily Factor).

Frankly, there's been a separation between religion and state ever since Augustus gave married couples tax benefits. If not earlier. It's nothing new.

Freedom of speech, press and religion are being oppressed. The bill of rights specifacally say freedom of speech and press but i can't slander some one or say fire in a movie theater as i also can only report the truth. See above for freedom of religion.

If a right is granted by the government, it isn't a right, it's a privelidge. To say that you have a "sacred and inalienable right" to life may be reasonable. To say that you have a right to freedom of speech, press and religion is far more questionable. I'm not saying that's a good thing- I am, however, saying that the so-called bill of rights is rather poorly thought through, and therefore very prone to abuse.

Right to bare arms. No not the right to wear short sleave shirts as said in hysteria but the right to own a weapon. Now this law is nulled and void if and only if the laws continue. For example lets say Billy a kid of 5 wants to buy a Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R). Now accordng to the bill of rights, Billy is allowed to buy the weapon if the vendor doesn't refuse service. According to our laws, there are age limits, a waiting period, a background check and restrictions.

Agreed. In any case, the "right to bare arms" was mostly the Founding Fathers' way of justifying the use of the various Militias who helped them sieze power in the first place.

The times have changed, certan things in the contatution need to go. (Amentments 2 and 11 most of all)

Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit.

http://www.pinetreeweb.com/s4b1.jpg

Make of that what you will.

i read what you have written and i reread the bill of rights. First of all the government would not write laws that go against religious groups. Second the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife is the correct definition of marriage. Not all people agianst gay marriages are catholic or protestant. I am catholic but gay marriage goes against my morals. By nature i am a chaotic and even evil people have morals. I am not opposed to gays living together just the idea of them marrying. If America becomes like canada and gives homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights then eventually you have to give people who like to have intercourse without the others consent equal right and bigimist equal right. According to Crane's model of revelotion this is too much change too fast. Eventuallly the society will revolt or revert to normal.

On the issues about the bill of rights. The bill of rights says nothing about limitations on the feedom of speech or press. As many of you know many newspapers twist the truth making the truth false and thus breaking the law by slandering the event. Since it is a large rich company it does not get fined. Since America is a land of equality and is similar in many aspects to communism then the law of slander can not apply to everyday people.

I am a politcal genius and find many loop holes. I also am a good stratician

I am not responible for anybody's actions ever.

I forgot most of the others but now starting at nine.

This right gives all other freedoms that may not be listed. This can be a little confusing. First, the right has to not be listed and rational. For instance you don't have the right to arrest some one who has a weapon as mentioned in the second amendment. So according to the nineth amendmant, do we have the right to cede? The answer no as demostrated by the civil war. But the main question is do i have the right to kill or do whatever i please. The answer isn't clear but some people might say yes.

I am a politcal genius and find many loop holes.

Then it would not be a surprise to you that it is the TENTH AMENDMENT that gives the right to the people (that is, the states) to make any law regarding things not covered in the Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Your interpretation is incorrect as well: Murder is a crime in all 50 states (ironically enough, the 10th Amendment in action here). If you murder someone (that is, kill them illegally) you cannot say it is a protected right, because the people have already ruled that murder is illegal.

Additionally, as my fiance has reminded me, Amendment V is the one that states you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law -- so that also, pardon the pun, "shoots down" your theory that murder is constitutionally protected.

I hate to burst your bubble (well, not really), but there is NO SUCH THING AS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in what you are referring to. If you read The Constitution, nothing talks about religion in any of the articles. If you are referring to the First Amendment, it says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This DOES NOT mean that Religion cannot be in Government, rather Government cannot be in Religion ("Respecting an establishment of religion). The framers intended this to mean no state-run religion, as they were in America due to disagreements with the Anglican church.

Also, if you think that religion being practiced in Government should also realise that you are trampling on MY religious freedoms because I will shortly be a Government employee and making me not being able to practice my religion is breaking the above law.

Right to bare arms. No not the right to wear short sleave shirts as said in hysteria but the right to own a weapon.



lmao. ya think?

Twas a Libertarian, and it would piss Limbaugh off...
True, true. Most people can't tell the obvious difference between a Republican and a Libertarian. Of course, most people don't know that Libs are for gay marriage, seperation of church and state and lots of other great things I happily support.
Oh, and the boy scouts thing? They're privately owned, not a public organization. They can allow whomever they want.
Find another club and don't give assholes like them money if you don't agree. It's so much simpler than people make it out to be.

America has a thing called seperation between Religion and state. In creating this law, America now has judges that could marry people.

It is not a law. Additionally, judges, justices of the peace, and ship captains have been able to marry people -- part of our English Common Law heritage, I shouldn't be surprised.

Marriage is a religous thing so America hands off.
It may be to you, but marriage is a legal contract as well.

America you can't change religions to make homosexuals marry.
No one is saying religions should be changed as far as I know; and what then do you say to the Christian sects that do allow it?

Also not letting gay people in the boy scouts is legit.
Why? Are they not males? do they not make good scouts?

No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are. Saying you are gay and marching down the streets in a parade is the equavalence of asking an old woman who all her partners were. (This was inspired by the O'Reily Factor).
No one needs to know your sexuality or who your partners are, but that does not stop people from bragging about their heterosexual sexual conquests either. And marching in a parade has NOTHING to do with asking rude questions of someone else.

America's Declaration of independance and constition is not being taught to some californians because it mentions God. So if they can't teach these important documents then its null and thus America the Land of the "Free" would be part of England once again.
Where the heck do you get that conclusion from? Just because I don't read the closing contract on my house every April 15th does not mean the ownership of it reverts to the person I bought it from.

Finally the freedoms:

Freedom of speech, press and religion are being oppressed. The bill of rights specifacally say freedom of speech and press but i can't slander some one or say fire in a movie theater as i also can only report the truth. See above for
freedom of religion. What are you on about? This is vague beyond belief, and it is the Supreme Court -- you know, that constitutionally created body, whose job is to interpret the Constitution -- that has ruled on what is protected speech. Besides -- what honorable person would need to lie, smear other's reputations, or try to cause mayhem and death by creating a panic?

Right to bare arms. No not the right to wear short sleave shirts as said in hysteria but the right to own a weapon. Now this law is nulled and void if and only if the laws continue. For example lets say Billy a kid of 5 wants to buy a Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R). Now accordng to the bill of rights, Billy is allowed to buy the weapon if the vendor doesn't refuse service. According to our laws, there are age limits, a waiting period, a background check and restrictions.
Right to BEAR arms, and if you read the amendment, it points out that this is necessary in "A well-regulated militia". No where does it say "private ownership of guns for any reason." Additionally -- what kind of person would think it appropriate for a five year old, who has no concept of cause and effect or right and wrong -- to have a weapon of any kind?

This is not an antimessage but just to inform.
If it is truly to inform, you need to go back and do your homework. Your research and reasoning is faulty.

Second the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife is the correct definition of marriage.
No it is one definition. A definition that not all socieities (nor all religions) have utilised. Were you momentarily distracted when you typed this, just being dishonest, because it's hard to believe that you are completely unaware of other marraige forms? (For instance polyagamy, polyandry, same gender, same sex marraiges?)

Not all people agianst gay marriages are catholic or protestant. I am catholic but gay marriage goes against my morals. By nature i am a chaotic and even evil people have morals. I am not opposed to gays living together just the idea of them marrying. If America becomes like canada and gives homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights then eventually you have to give people who like to have intercourse without the others consent equal right and bigimist equal right.
No you dont, this is as silly as suggesting that granting equality to anyone who is not a white male will lead to fish being given voting rights.

According to Crane's model of revelotion this is too much change too fast. Eventuallly the society will revolt or revert to normal.
According to other people, it's not too much too fast. Even were Crane to be correct about too much change, who's to say that the change that was too much wasnt the intial change to 'Christian definitions' of marraige, and that the increasing call for equality of homosexual couples (with heterosexual couples) is not a reversion back to 'normal'? After all homosexual marraige unions were practised in the Americas until very recently (aka shortly after 'white man' showed up on the scene). Certainly the history of homosexuals marraiges in the Americas predates 'christian marraige doctrine's' arrival in the Americas, and certainly such marraiges were practised for much longer than Christianised marraiges have been practised in America.

What I find pitiful is that every single argument I have heard against granting homosexual marraiges (including those you have presented in this thread) is painfully unsound. Either such arguments are not logically coherent (the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or the premises themselves are incorrect. You do your argument and yourself no credit when you base your arguments on premises which are simply not true.

I think the point everyone is missing here is that the Bill of Rights can be interpreted many ways, and was designed as such. The people who wrote it wanted to manipulate it in a way that all would agree. This meant making it somewhat vague.

I think the point everyone is missing here is that the Bill of Rights can be interpreted many ways, and was designed as such. The people who wrote it wanted to manipulate it in a way that all would agree. This meant making it somewhat vague.

The one way it DOES resemble something based on Christianity...

:D