NationStates Jolt Archive

Interfering, unconstitutional, six toed, christian pieces of crap. How does one muster the unmitigated gaul to tell two parents that they cannot expose their child to wiccan beliefs, which both parents share, because the judge and some jackass conservative Christian bureaucrat find them non-mainstream?! I've got an idea for an appeal- it involves an arena, the judge, a hungry lion, and a big bowl of popcorn for me.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

I've got an idea for an appeal- it involves an arena, the judge, a hungry lion, and a big bowl of popcorn for me.

I'd pay to see that. Fuck, I'd even buy my own bowl of popcorn!

So what dooes that story have to do with owning a gun?

So what dooes that story have to do with owning a gun?

*cocks his head sideways*

umm...because you can use a gun to shoot people who have the audacity to threaten your basic constitutional rights...

So what dooes that story have to do with owning a gun?
If the government becomes sufficiently tyrranical he can take up arms against it.

eh, its because of those conservative christians that you have the right to own that gun ;)

They are generally the ones who are pro guns, while the Dems, liberals,etc. are Pro gun control/banning...

oh this is classic, so here we have a rarety, a spiritual systems which actually DOESN'T condone mass murder of people who don't agree with you..... and its been banned, I'm an atheist and I see mainstream religion as one of the greatest problems with the world today..... Wicca, I don't see a problem with if people wanna do that then fine, its like homosexuality, not my cup of tea but who the hell am I to tell you what to do.....

I assume it has something to with the gun and the evangelical christian communities collective head.

Interfering, unconstitutional, six toed, christian pieces of crap. How does one muster the unmitigated gaul to tell two parents that they cannot expose their child to wiccan beliefs, which both parents share, because the judge and some jackass conservative Christian bureaucrat find them non-mainstream?! I've got an idea for an appeal- it involves an arena, the judge, a hungry lion, and a big bowl of popcorn for me.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
Now, how is that not a violation of separation of church and state?

eh, its because of those conservative christians that you have the right to own that gun ;)

They are generally the ones who are pro guns, while the Dems, liberals,etc. are Pro gun control/banning...

No, actually, its because of the framers of the constitution. As far as I'm concerned both the liberals and the conservatives have sinned themselves into hell. You don't get to pick and choose which rights you stand behind. Either you're pro-gun, anti-censorship, pro-religious freedom, pro-privacy, or you're anti-constitution. There is NO middle ground.

Now, how is that not a violation of separation of church and state?

No way on earth it isn't. I say we apply their little golden rule and make all their children read Liber Al Vel Legis...


-sarcasm people, sarcasm-

No, actually, its because of the framers of the constitution. As far as I'm concerned both the liberals and the conservatives have sinned themselves into hell. You don't get to pick and choose which rights you stand behind. Either you're pro-gun, anti-censorship, pro-religious freedom, pro-privacy, or you're anti-constitution. There is NO middle ground.

LOL that's great, if only politics were that simple :D
But they are not.

If the government becomes sufficiently tyrranical he can take up arms against it.
Instead of.......I'm just stabbing in the dark here....... protesting?

eh, its because of those conservative christians that you have the right to own that gun ;)

:rolleyes: The second amendment was in place long before the conservative christians rose to power. And not all Dems are for banning guns, though gun control doesn't sound that bad to me. What issue do you have with registering your weapons?

Instead of.......I'm just stabbing in the dark here....... protesting?
Assasinating the tyrranical leaders is a valid and effective form of protest.

Assasinating the tyrranical leaders is a valid and effective form of protest.
No, that's assasinating the tyrranical leaders. Not protesting

I liek how these "wiccans" send their kid to a catholic school.

I think the Judge just did this because the parents are douches.

No, that's assasinating the tyrranical leaders. Not protesting
It's an agressive form of protest. Like burining someone in effigy, just without the effigy part.

I liek how these "wiccans" send their kid to a catholic school.

I think the Judge just did this because the parents are douches.

That's still no reason to deny them their rights.

umm...because you can use a gun to shoot people who have the audacity to threaten your basic constitutional rights...

Oh sure you can... It would be premeditated muder, but you can.

It's an agressive form of protest. Like burining someone in effigy, just without the effigy part.
But you are not making them reconsider what they are doing. you're making them....well.... dead

I liek how these "wiccans" send their kid to a catholic school.

I think the Judge just did this because the parents are douches.
Maybe the public schools in the neighborhood were crime-ridden cesspools of failure. It happens.

That's still no reason to deny them their rights.

Probably not. But I am saying it is not part of a uber-christian conspiracy. Rather the parents are fucking dickheads made the judge snap.

In any case, how serious can their "wiccan" beliefs be, if they send the kid to a catholic school.

But you are not making them reconsider what they are doing. you're making them....well.... dead
The government's bigger than just a few men. You kill a few to make the rest of the government reconsider. If that fails you kill a few more. Lather, rinse, repeat untill you get what you want.

LOL that's great, if only politics were that simple :D
But they are not.

No, they aren't, but that doesn't mean I have to make a deal with the devil. I refuse to stand on the side of someone I hate just because they follow some of my views. I vote by runner, not by party. And the reason were in the hole we are is because of all the little sheeples who vote red or blue without paying attention to what it means. Straight ticket voters should get a drool cup as soon as they leave the poll.

Probably not. But I am saying it is not part of a uber-christian conspiracy. Rather the parents are fucking dickheads made the judge snap.

In any case, how serious can their "wiccan" beliefs be, if they send the kid to a catholic school.

That's still no reason to justify what that fuckwit did.

Maybe the public schools in the neighborhood were crime-ridden cesspools of failure. It happens.

And catholic school is the only alternative?

There are two non-religious private schools within walking distance of me.

I suspect these two are not fit to raise children, and that is they real problem here.

That's still no reason to justify what that fuckwit did.

I am only pointing out that there is more to this story than first meets the eye.

Instead of.......I'm just stabbing in the dark here....... protesting?

Protests don't work nearly as well as alot of people think. Do you think civil rights happened because the reverend King had a dream? Hell no, civil rights happened because while the Reverend King was preaching non-violence the black Panthers were getting ready for war. Protests are a warning, not an end.

No, that's assasinating the tyrranical leaders. Not protesting

The only difference is the degree.

The government's bigger than just a few men. You kill a few to make the rest of the government reconsider. If that fails you kill a few more. Lather, rinse, repeat untill you get what you want.
Let's just say there are more solutions to the same problem.

I liek how these "wiccans" send their kid to a catholic school.

I think the Judge just did this because the parents are douches.

In alot of cities thats the only kind of private school available. Besides, Catholic school isn't sunday school, it is a service in exchange for money. Its the church having to bend over and spread 'em cause they don't have enough rubes in the pews to fill their coffers.

Interfering, unconstitutional, six toed, christian pieces of crap. How does one muster the unmitigated gaul to tell two parents that they cannot expose their child to wiccan beliefs, which both parents share, because the judge and some jackass conservative Christian bureaucrat find them non-mainstream?! I've got an idea for an appeal- it involves an arena, the judge, a hungry lion, and a big bowl of popcorn for me.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481


I don't believe in Wiccan beliefs, but, geez, where does that judge get off telling people how to raise their own kids. How does he know what's harmful. Maybe Wiccan beliefs are closer to the truth than Christian ones are!!!

I'm appalled at this story, it's unbelieveable!

Oh sure you can... It would be premeditated muder, but you can.

If you stand between me and my freedom or life I will orphan your children and widow your wife. As good a mantra as any for a freeman.

But you are not making them reconsider what they are doing. you're making them....well.... dead

Wheres the downside? You don't reason with a cancer, you excise it.

:D No, actually, its because of the framers of the constitution. As far as I'm concerned both the liberals and the conservatives have sinned themselves into hell. You don't get to pick and choose which rights you stand behind. Either you're pro-gun, anti-censorship, pro-religious freedom, pro-privacy, or you're anti-constitution. There is NO middle ground.
Well it's lucky for everyone that the people who wrote the constitution were a little bit more intelligent than you are then isn't it. If your ludicrous proposition is correct why are there not one but TWO ways of changing the constitution written into it, why are there so many amendments already written into it? :D

Probably not. But I am saying it is not part of a uber-christian conspiracy. Rather the parents are fucking dickheads made the judge snap.

In any case, how serious can their "wiccan" beliefs be, if they send the kid to a catholic school.

Exposure to other religions isn't a problem for pagans in general so sending their child to a Catholic school isn't in opposition to their beliefs. Sad as it is, catholic schools offer a better education than the public schools in many places. So they chose for their child to have the best education they could get; this makes them bad parents?

And you've nothing to base your assessment of the parents on; it's just as likely the judge was the twit in this little drama.

If you stand between me and Allah I will orphan your children and widow your wife. As good a mantra as any for a faithful man.

Fixed it for you.



Think about it.... no really think about it.

And catholic school is the only alternative?

There are two non-religious private schools within walking distance of me.

I suspect these two are not fit to raise children, and that is they real problem here.

I live in Chicago, a big city to be sure, and I can't think of a single non-christian private school with a tuition under $30,000 a year. In alot of areas it is the only option.

And where the hell do you get off trying to lay this on the parents? You've got Torquemada on the bench and you're throwing barbs at his victims?

In alot of cities thats the only kind of private school available. Besides, Catholic school isn't sunday school, it is a service in exchange for money. Its the church having to bend over and spread 'em cause they don't have enough rubes in the pews to fill their coffers.

Actually, that's kind of bullshit.

It's not a service in exchange for money, it's a religious institution that offers instruction in secular subjects. Which is why so many teachers are not of the laity.

If you send your kid to catholic school, you can't be very committed to raising them in the "wiccan" lifestyle. Not least because 90% of the faculity at said school probably believe the kid is going to hell.

In any case, how serious can their "wiccan" beliefs be, if they send the kid to a catholic school.


As a Catholic, I have to agree. We're not exactly well known for our compassion towards people of other faiths, sad to say...

Wheres the downside? You don't reason with a cancer, you excise it.
a) You'll be in prison for a looooooong time
b) You'll be a murderer
c) there's no guarantee the next one will not be a tyrant, if not even one more so
d) Many people will get hurt in riots

I live in Chicago, a big city to be sure, and I can't think of a single non-christian private school with a tuition under $30,000 a year. In alot of areas it is the only option.

And where the hell do you get off trying to lay this on the parents? You've got Torquemada on the bench and you're throwing barbs at his victims?

I just checked. There is a non-religious private school in Marrion County that awards both the IB and an Indiana diploma, if he continues through high school. It is only $500 a year more than the school the kid is currently at.

In addition, this school is international, and therefore whould have the added benefit - if exposing the kid to other religions is what the parents want - to more religions/culture than just american catholicism.

I'm not saying I think the judge did the right thing. I am just saying I think the parents could well be douches too, which probably contributed to the whole situation.

You don't get to pick and choose which rights you stand behind. Either you're pro-gun, anti-censorship, pro-religious freedom, pro-privacy, or you're anti-constitution. There is NO middle ground.

Maybe I'm not up-to-date, but I don't remember anything about the right to privacy being enshrined in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.

I'm not saying I think the judge did the right thing. I am just saying I think the parents could well be douches too, which probably contributed to the whole situation.

That I can agree with. And to be fair, if there was an alternative to Catholic school such as the one you mentioned there's no way in hell I'd send my kid to the catholic school. Precisely for the reason someone else mentioned; the catholic religion is completely intolerant of other faiths.

:D
Well it's lucky for everyone that the people who wrote the constitution were a little bit more intelligent than you are then isn't it. If your ludicrous proposition is correct why are there not one but TWO ways of changing the constitution written into it, why are there so many amendments already written into it? :D

Lets take a careful look at your statement. Since the bill of rights, there have been 17 ammendments in 230ish years. One of those ammendments (the 21st) cancels a previous one (the 18th, prohibition), so that makes 15 amendments. Now of those 15 ammendments, 3 were involved with the immediate aftermath of the civil war (abolition of slavery, reorganization of the republic and interpretation of rights, rights not to be denied based on race). So that leaves twelve. Nine are clarifications or changes in election procedures (direct election of the president and vice-president, direct election of senators, right of women to vote, presidential term and succession, banning of poll taxes, presidential succession, presidential vote for DC, term limits for president, right of 18 year olds to vote). That leaves three. Those three are the 11th, which limits federal authority in disputes between states, the 16th, which makes income tax legal, and the 27th, which determines how congress can give itself a raise (which was supposed to the be in the original bill of rights but never managed to get ratified by the states. There haven't been that many changes, and almost all of them have been either clarifications or expansions of pre-existing rights.

Fixed it for you.



Think about it.... no really think about it.

Freedom is far more worthy of veneration than any mythical father figure, be he allah/yahweh/jehova/bozo the clown, shaking his angry fist from thousands of years ago.

Maybe I'm not up-to-date, but I don't remember anything about the right to privacy being enshrined in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

While this doesn't explicitly state that people have a 'right to privacy' this is where it comes from.

Actually, that's kind of bullshit.

It's not a service in exchange for money, it's a religious institution that offers instruction in secular subjects. Which is why so many teachers are not of the laity.

If you send your kid to catholic school, you can't be very committed to raising them in the "wiccan" lifestyle. Not least because 90% of the faculity at said school probably believe the kid is going to hell.

Opposition builds character. Strong people don't grow up never facing anything contrary to their opinions. Fact is, a wiccan kid can go to a catholic school, get a decent secular education, and look at the religion classes as merely learning about the dominant mythology of his society. I'm a Thelemite and I greatly value the religious instruction I recieved as a child, it means that no one can ever shake their head and say "you just don't understand." No, I understand, I found it wanting, and I made a different choice.

Opposition builds character. Strong people don't grow up never facing anything contrary to their opinions. Fact is, a wiccan kid can go to a catholic school, get a decent secular education, and look at the religion classes as merely learning about the dominant mythology of his society. I'm a Thelemite and I greatly value the religious instruction I recieved as a child, it means that no one can ever shake their head and say "you just don't understand." No, I understand, I found it wanting, and I made a different choice.

Well then the judge is really helping. I can't think of anything more oppressive than practicing his religion in secret. That will really build some character.

Edit: What's a Thelemite?

Freedom is far more worthy of veneration than any mythical father figure, be he allah/yahweh/jehova/bozo the clown, shaking his angry fist from thousands of years ago.

While I agree with you, I think his point was that if you've got some intangible (freedom) you'd be willing to kill or die for you have to realize that to others their intangibles (Allah) are just as sacred to them as yours is to you.

It's the same mind set, just a different idea in the middle.

a) You'll be in prison for a looooooong time
b) You'll be a murderer
c) there's no guarantee the next one will not be a tyrant, if not even one more so
d) Many people will get hurt in riots

a) Maybe I'll end up in prison, maybe I'll end up a national hero, with pictures of me crossing rivers in history books. Revolution is a dangerous game, which is why it shouldn't be lightly undertaken. Still, guns give you the option.
b) So? What, am I supposed to be afraid that I'll end up down in hell with all the other sinners and unbaptised savages?
c) Again, its a gamble, but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
d) Boo hoo. Social change is hard.

I just checked. There is a non-religious private school in Marrion County that awards both the IB and an Indiana diploma, if he continues through high school. It is only $500 a year more than the school the kid is currently at.

In addition, this school is international, and therefore whould have the added benefit - if exposing the kid to other religions is what the parents want - to more religions/culture than just american catholicism.

I'm not saying I think the judge did the right thing. I am just saying I think the parents could well be douches too, which probably contributed to the whole situation.

Well, aside from the fact that I've found most wiccans I've met in my life to be douches (though far less douchy than most born-agains), there are things we do not know about the situation. If the child in question is learning disabled, the IB program is probably not the enviornment for him. The Catholic school could be closer. Or the family might be poor and recieve more scholarship money from the Catholic school. That said, I do see the problem, I just feel that the biggest douche of all is the Judge. Decisions like that SHOULD be fatal, I only regret that they aren't.

Maybe I'm not up-to-date, but I don't remember anything about the right to privacy being enshrined in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.

Don't keep up on precident, do you? The fourth ammendment (and, to a lesser degree, the fifth) keeps the federal government out of your buisness without a warrant. The 14th extends that prohibition to local governments as well. Granted, some of those protections are being eroded, but the courts are beginning to turn around. Like it or not, privacy has 200 years of precident on it's side. Want an example? Go and read the actual text of the Roe v. Wade decision and the precidents it cites. The argument is built around privacy, and despite millions of dollars a year, no one has found a crack.

Well then the judge is really helping. I can't think of anything more oppressive than practicing his religion in secret. That will really build some character.

Edit: What's a Thelemite?

Theres a difference between opposition and oppression.

As for what a Thelemite is, it's the religious world-view first preposed by Aleister Crowley. The theology (if one could call it that) can get rather complicated, but the central tenet of the faith is built around the Law of Thelema (Thelema being the greek word for Will). The Law of Thelema is "a simple code of conduct" stated as:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
"Love is the law, love under will."
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

Freedom is far more worthy of veneration than any mythical father figure, be he allah/yahweh/jehova/bozo the clown, shaking his angry fist from thousands of years ago.

You tried, you failed. This isn't about the worthiness of freedom over religion. It is about the dangerously thin line between protecting your rights and vigilantism.

You tried, you failed. This isn't about the worthiness of freedom over religion. It is about the dangerously thin line between protecting your rights and vigilantism.

I've failed your test? Let me cry a river. Protecting your rights and vigilantism are traditionally associated because you can rarely expect the government to protect them for you. What was the Boston Tea Party? What was it when recently freed black farmers took up arms against white militias and the KKK? What was it when Minutemen broke every established law of war and sniped Red Coats before the soldiers even saw them? We live in a brutal world, there are predators and there are prey. You can paint it however you please, but at some point people who believe in freedom have to kill to defend it.

I've failed your test? Let me cry a river.

I didn't want to make you cry... I'm sorry. :(

Protecting your rights and vigilantism are traditionally associated...

Absolutely not. Vigilantism is, in fact, the few who are violent and armed depriving the rights of others.

...rarely expect the government to protect them for you.

You and your representatives are the government. If we lived in an authoritarian state then I could see your point.

What was the Boston Tea Party? What was it when recently freed black farmers took up arms against white militias and the KKK? What was it when Minutemen broke every established law of war and sniped Red Coats before the soldiers even saw them?

Treason and vigilantism. It was just rationalized.

You can paint it however you please, but at some point people who believe in freedom have to kill to defend it.

And those people are brutes and hypocrites. If you really hold your rights sacred why don't you do it while respecting the rights of others, say, through non-violent resistance.

note: the most miss quoted part of the constitution is "the right to bear arms........if you are apart of the local malitia " it's not as if we have to hunt for food any more or fend off the 'savage' indians.


another thing be carful about bashing christians and so on don't judge all by the actions of one idiot (no matter how long he went to colledge) because you end up ranting and seemingly come off as being a bigger bigot than that idiot.



just to note i agree with you on the artical the judge obviously slept through class when it came to the constitution.

ooooooohhhh i just remembered something, of course it is just after i posted.


a belief i have that i think best applies to all the laws and freedoms we all have is to act like everyone has a bubble you keep your beliefs in your bubble and i'll keep mine in mine. that would be best. you can talk about them with those who wish to know about them.


then the only ones in the wrong are those who run around with big pointy sticks trying to pop others' bubbles with no sense of others rights or thoughts.

then we should all gang u on them and be done with it

note: the most miss quoted part of the constitution is "the right to bear arms........if you are apart of the local malitia "

Nope: never mind the erratic spelling, you also managed to get the words of the text wrong -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere is it directly stated that you must belong to a militia to bear arms.

Nope: never mind the erratic spelling, you also managed to get the words of the text wrong -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere is it directly stated that you must belong to a militia to bear arms.
To be fair, that is subject to interpretation. Both can be argued. This is why there is such a huge debate over this.

If you stand between me and my freedom or life I will orphan your children and widow your wife. As good a mantra as any for a freeman.Just a friendly note from a Moderator: Be very careful with statements that could be construed as threatening because you don't want to sound like you're threatening another NationStates player.

This is just a precautionary note. You haven't done anything wrong and you're not in trouble... yet. I just want to make sure that you don't get into trouble. It's easy to lose ones self-control and get into trouble in heated debates.

Carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I didn't want to make you cry... I'm sorry. :(



Absolutely not. Vigilantism is, in fact, the few who are violent and armed depriving the rights of others.



You and your representatives are the government. If we lived in an authoritarian state then I could see your point.



Treason and vigilantism. It was just rationalized.



And those people are brutes and hypocrites. If you really hold your rights sacred why don't you do it while respecting the rights of others, say, through non-violent resistance.


Its ok, I love ya anyway ;)

And now, to WAR! :)

Ok, heres why non-violent resistance isn't always the answer. Non-violence is a great way to show your displeasure, but if those in power do not care (as in the case of the American revolution) or are actively trying to displease you (as in the case of black farmers in the antebellum south) it simply doesn't work. There is a time when you must either accept oppression by respecting the rights of someone who does not respect yours, or you must stand up and demand that your rights be respected. Someone does not have the right to do violence upon me. If they do, I am JUSTIFIED, not rationalized, in defending myself.

To be fair, that is subject to interpretation. Both can be argued. This is why there is such a huge debate over this.

militias are formed by civilians

in order for civilians to form effective militias, it would behoove them to be armed with firearms.

hehe

[QUOTE=The Bridgette
another thing be carful about bashing christians and so on don't judge all by the actions of one idiot (no matter how long he went to colledge) because you end up ranting and seemingly come off as being a bigger bigot than that idiot.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, I must concede that I do hold a prejudice against Christians, particularly of the conservative evangelical/charismatic stripe. There is a certain amount of bigotry in that prejudice, and though it is strongly influenced by my life experiance, it is still wrong. Stories like this tend to pull it out in me because in my experiance, the one idiot you see has the moral support of dozens you'll never know.

a belief i have that i think best applies to all the laws and freedoms we all have is to act like everyone has a bubble you keep your beliefs in your bubble and i'll keep mine in mine. that would be best. you can talk about them with those who wish to know about them.


then the only ones in the wrong are those who run around with big pointy sticks trying to pop others' bubbles with no sense of others rights or thoughts.

then we should all gang up on them and be done with it

Not a bad idea at all...The bubble idea really isn't much different from what our founding fathers intended. The only problem is that everyone thinks their pet group should get a big pointy stick exemption.

To be fair, that is subject to interpretation. Both can be argued. This is why there is such a huge debate over this.

There are two things you need to consider about the wording of the second ammendment. The first is English syntax, and the second how words were used at the time of writing.

Lets look at the dull grammar issues in the second ammendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Ok, so what we have here are two dependent clauses (italic and underlined, respectively) and an independent clause (in bold). Without the independent, neither of the dependent clauses are complete, they simply do not make sense. The dependent clause, however, can stand alone quite nicely. The logical way to read this sentance is to view the dependent clauses as commentaries on the basic concept of the independent clause: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Now lets look at wording. In the late eighteenth century, the word "people" had a very specific meaning, particularly in political speech. Lets look at it's uses in the constitution. In the preamble, the word people clearly refers to individual members of the union, not states or government entities. To get a further idea of the way our founders intended to use the word "people" look at the first ammendment. In the first ammendment the word "people" is clearly meant to refer to individuals, granting "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Moving on to the fourth ammendment we see a similar usage of the word "people." Why is it that in this one ammendment there is so much confusion about such a basic word?

Just a friendly note from a Moderator: Be very careful with statements that could be construed as threatening because you don't want to sound like you're threatening another NationStates player.

This is just a precautionary note. You haven't done anything wrong and you're not in trouble... yet. I just want to make sure that you don't get into trouble. It's easy to lose ones self-control and get into trouble in heated debates.

Carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Thanks for the warning. It most certainly wasn't meant as a threat (I fail to see how anyone could endanger anything but good taste on a message board). I was simply explaining a mantra I use to illustrate how I feel about freedom and the human right to self defense.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

Doesn't this directly contravene the constitutional rights to freedom of religion?

Thanks for the warning. It most certainly wasn't meant as a threat (I fail to see how anyone could endanger anything but good taste on a message board). I was simply explaining a mantra I use to illustrate how I feel about freedom and the human right to self defense.

I can see how it can be considered a threat. If it helps at all I didn't take it as one.

*cocks his head sideways*

umm...because you can use a gun to shoot people who have the audacity to threaten your basic constitutional rights...

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that any judge that makes a ruling you don't like should be shot.

That is not patriotism or liberty. That is a serious federal crime.

No, actually, its because of the framers of the constitution. As far as I'm concerned both the liberals and the conservatives have sinned themselves into hell. You don't get to pick and choose which rights you stand behind. Either you're pro-gun, anti-censorship, pro-religious freedom, pro-privacy, or you're anti-constitution. There is NO middle ground.

Unless, of course, you actually study the constitution.

Then the "pro-gun" part isn't so clear-cut as you think.

Protests don't work nearly as well as alot of people think. Do you think civil rights happened because the reverend King had a dream? Hell no, civil rights happened because while the Reverend King was preaching non-violence the black Panthers were getting ready for war. Protests are a warning, not an end.

Ridiculous.

Check your history books again.

Huey Newton started the Black Panther Party in 1968.

Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.

The Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965.

The Black Panthers made a contribution. (After, of course, Malcolm X was assassinated).

But don't you dare belittle the accomplishments of the NAACP, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Freedom Riders, and others that worked through non-violence. They achieved the greatest victories of the Civil Rights Movement.

Maybe I'm not up-to-date, but I don't remember anything about the right to privacy being enshrined in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.

See, the Constitution expressly provides for this little group, the US Supreme Court -- maybe you've heard of them?

Not all rights protected by the Constitution are expressly enumerated therein. As the Court has been explaining for at least 100 years (and the Ninth Amendment expressly says).

The Fourteenth Amendment provides substantive and procedural protections for liberty.

Among the fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is the right to privacy.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). ... Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). ...

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Though I could never see myself, or any child I may have in a Catholic school, I cannot deny the fact that even as a religious school, most religions are set in good moral. I was raised catholic and found that there are many good things and kind people, but have chosen a different path on my own searching. No one can tell you / force you to believe in anything(my mom sure tried to change me), and there are always loopholes in the US law system(they are exploited all the time). The kid could go to a bookstore without the parents knowledge, be ‘exposed’ to Wicca from the new age section, choose to practice it, and ‘decide’ to practice along-side his parents. That particular scenario wouldn’t be against the ruling of the judge, would it? Besides, the court would have to find and forbid all families exposing children to Wiccan belief systems to be truly just in such a decision. It would have to become a law that a child could only grow up with core morals and later choose their own religion, because it is against the constitution to single out any religious belief. Although it would be highly improbable, considering that most Americans are of Christian or Catholic belief and wouldn’t want to ‘deprive’ their children. No offense, but if the kid doesn’t agree with the parent’s view, they will find their own way around it, I did…

A bit on religious protection (http://www.peo7.com/htmFiles/Substance415.htm)

Now, how is that not a violation of separation of church and state?
Firstly, the codified law has nothing to do with the complete separation of church and state. Rather it has to do with not elevating a single religion to the exclusion of others. This is most certainly a violation of the latter, however.

Firstly, the codified law has nothing to do with the complete separation of church and state. Rather it has to do with not elevating a single religion to the exclusion of others. This is most certainly a violation of the latter, however.

LOL.

Sorry, codified law is the separation of church and state. Has been for over 100 years.

This was most clearly explained in Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 US 1 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Just to let you know:

I consider myself a deeply spiritual Christian. I vote mostly for conservative candidates and bills. I disaprove of this judge's ruling.

Very much so.

So, as long as I'm not thrown into that den of yours, I'll gladly protest that judge's actions (although without a gun, if you don't mind). :)

Instead of.......I'm just stabbing in the dark here....... protesting?


Ever wonder WHY we have the Right to Bear Arms? Hint: It has nothing to do with hunting or "protecting our families", in the most common sense anyway.

It has to do with that the founding fathers wanted to give the people the power to overthrow the government if it were to become a tyrranny, one which refuses to support the people. This, of course, would take an extremely unlikely series of events, but we still have that power.

Nope: never mind the erratic spelling, you also managed to get the words of the text wrong -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere is it directly stated that you must belong to a militia to bear arms.

So lets get a buch Hill billies to protect the nation...hmm let me see would i want a fully trained and equiped army to defend me or a bunch of red necks.

That i feel is the main reason why that amendment is out of date and should be replaced with something ever so slightly up to date and dare i say it relivent.

It has to do with that the founding fathers wanted to give the people the power to overthrow the government if it were to become a tyrranny, one which refuses to support the people. This, of course, would take an extremely unlikely series of events, but we still have that power.

Really where does it say that?

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that any judge that makes a ruling you don't like should be shot.

That is not patriotism or liberty. That is a serious federal crime.

In a perfect world, people would be held accountable for their actions. In a perfect world, a judge who made a blatantly unconstitutional decision because he was trying to make a statement would be brought up on charges of treason and hung. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world, so I can only hope he gets voted out of office, goes on a bender, picks up a hooker, and dies of untreated syphalis a decade later.

Unless, of course, you actually study the constitution.

Then the "pro-gun" part isn't so clear-cut as you think.

Well, I'll point you to post #68 on this thread. I can also point you to the Justice Department recognizing the second ammendment as an individual right, as well as 6 of the current supreme court justices being on record saying they feel it refers to an individual right. If you take a walk through precedent, you'll see that judges generally rule it as an individual right. All 50 states and the district of columbia recognize gun ownership as an individual right in their laws, and 38 allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons. Theres also a small, but growing, number of states that grant class III weapons (fully automatic rifles and pistols, silencers, light artillery, anti-aircraft weapons, grenade launchers, full auto shotguns, short barrled rifles and shotguns, etc) to individuals, and the federal government, even under Clinton, never mounted a legal challenge. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Ridiculous.

Check your history books again.

Huey Newton started the Black Panther Party in 1968.

Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.

The Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965.

The Black Panthers made a contribution. (After, of course, Malcolm X was assassinated).

But don't you dare belittle the accomplishments of the NAACP, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Freedom Riders, and others that worked through non-violence. They achieved the greatest victories of the Civil Rights Movement.


Don't I dare do what? Oh, I'm sorry, were you under the impression that racists followed laws? Fear and respect are the ONLY things that keeps humans in line. Bear in mind, our constitution made it illegal to withold rights based on race after the civil war. Dreams might have swayed politicians in Washington, but the fear of black men with guns kept Sheriff Bubba from straying too far.

So lets get a buch Hill billies to protect the nation...hmm let me see would i want a fully trained and equiped army to defend me or a bunch of red necks.

That i feel is the main reason why that amendment is out of date and should be replaced with something ever so slightly up to date and dare i say it relivent.

Red necks, ahh, you're not a racist, some of your best friends are white, right? I've got news for ya, kid, I've lived my entire life in a large, northern city, I'm a graduate student, and I own alot of guns. Most of my shooting buddies are of a similar set. On top of that, a great many avid shooters are ex-military and they bring their training with them.

Why does a well armed populace help defend a country? Take a look at the resistance in France during WWII. Or you could glace over at whats going on in Iraq. You could look at the American Revolutionary war, or the Vietnam war. Soldiers are easily recognized and theres only so many of them, but if every citizen is armed both invaders and tyrants lose the advantage of numbers.

You missed this thread by about 2 weeks.

Thanks for trying.

[QUOTE=Tograna]oh this is classic, so here we have a rarety, a spiritual systems which actually DOESN'T condone mass murder of people who don't agree with you...../QUOTE]
Actually, Christianity doesn't condone mass murder of any kind. It's kind of like slavery, you can find something in the bible to support just about any posisition.

In a perfect world, people would be held accountable for their actions. In a perfect world, a judge who made a blatantly unconstitutional decision because he was trying to make a statement would be brought up on charges of treason and hung. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world, so I can only hope he gets voted out of office, goes on a bender, picks up a hooker, and dies of untreated syphalis a decade later.
In a "perfect world" where "people would be held accountable for their actions", or perhaps the Middle East (I couldn't remember which one you were talking about), you'd get your hands cut off for stealing. You could also possibly get your tongue scalded by a heated spoon for lying. What if you were different from what the government deemed normal? They'd probably take you into an abandoned soccer field and shoot you for everyone to see. They wouldn't shoot to kill either. They'd pop you a few times and let you bleed to death.

Yeh, too bad we don't live in that world.

Why does a well armed populace help defend a country? Take a look at the resistance in France during WWII.

Saying the French resistance did something during the war is a bit of a joke, kinda like saying that 90% were somehow involved in the movement...unless you buy into the resetenze point of view...


Or you could glace over at whats going on in Iraq. You could look at the American Revolutionary war, or the Vietnam war. Soldiers are easily recognized and theres only so many of them, but if every citizen is armed both invaders and tyrants lose the advantage of numbers.

See the thing is with those guys is that you have to wait to have the enemy on your own soil to fight them with a highly trained military you can stop the enemy before it even happens, you and your North red neck buddies :p would have to wait for the enemy to come to you. You would have to be fit and healthy and have to be willing to fight for a cause, now given the current state of health of the average American fitness will be an issue and as the average American can't seem to get worked up even when POTUS lies to you...how do you expect to fight for your country?

Also it's worth pointing out the two theatres of war you have highlighted (Iraq and Vietnam) were/are being fought by the American military machine which had/has little or no competence (see British victory in Malaya and quiet iraq, and other sucess against such forces in balkans) in the field of fighting a hidden force.

You may think that you and your buddies can win the day but I'll le tyou inot a little secret...the French got your independence for you. ;)