NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Hmmm must be an election year.

I wonder if they would be ok with Muslim prayer in school and Stars of David on public lands?

That'll teach the heathens to have different beliefs! :mad:

*facepalm*

For what it's worth, at least one Missourian thinks this is idiotic...

Well, according to many people Christianity has shaped the USA. Which is why I'm lobbying my congressman to ban taking the Lord's name in vain, working on Sundays, and worshiping anyone but Jesus.

Well, according to many people Christianity has shaped the USA. Which is why I'm lobbying my congressman to ban taking the Lord's name in vain, working on Sundays, and worshiping anyone but Jesus.

But I can still have sex with my daughters when they get me drunk, right? Worked for Lot. Be sure to include that in your lobby. :D

But I can still have sex with my daughters when they get me drunk, right? Worked for Lot. Be sure to include that in your lobby. :D
If it's in the bible it's OK with me.
*commits genocide on a neighboring pagan tribe*

But I can still have sex with my daughters when they get me drunk, right? Worked for Lot. Be sure to include that in your lobby. :D
Man, inbreeding is so Arkansas. It went out of style along with condoms and log cabins.

*facepalm*

For what it's worth, at least one Missourian thinks this is idiotic...

Make that two!

If it's in the bible it's OK with me.


Awesomeness! *goes and kills his son for disobeying*

The Missouri govt recognises god? I wanna know what kind of glasses they're wearing, because I sure as hell can't see him.

The Missouri govt recognises god? I wanna know what kind of glasses they're wearing, because I sure as hell can't see him.

You cannot see God Kievan.

And this is an interesting twist.

You cannot see God Kievan.

In related news, the sky is blue and ice is cold.

Does anyone else find this extremely frightening? It seems like the first step towards a tyrannic government, the exact kind the US was fighting to get away from 200 years ago.

And this can't get through the Supreme Court... it is a direct violation of the first Amendment.

"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."

The US was built on freedom. This isn't freedom.

even as a Englishman I know this can't work. Seperation of Church and state, right?

even as a Englishman I know this can't work. Seperation of Church and state, right?
Well considering the fact that Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" allow government money to subsidize religious charities that discriminate by religion when hiring employees and no court has condemned that yet, I think maybe the courts will let us slip into theocracy.

Man, inbreeding is so Arkansas. It went out of style along with condoms and log cabins.

I love log cabins.

Does anyone else find this extremely frightening? It seems like the first step towards a tyrannic government, the exact kind the US was fighting to get away from 200 years ago.
First...?

Missouri goverment to "recognize" the Christian god

Not too hard to do. Big white beard, robes, how can you miss him?

Well considering the fact that Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" allow government money to subsidize religious charities that discriminate by religion when hiring employees and no court has condemned that yet, I think maybe the courts will let us slip into theocracy.
Hell fire, i missed that one completely!

Hell fire, i missed that one completely!
Watch it. That kind of language is probably going to be a federal offense and evidence of terrorism under Patriot Act II.

In related news, the sky is blue and ice is cold.
Hmmmm?

http://www.blueventures.org/images/Red-Sky-at-NightB.jpg

As a good friend of mine said the other day... these people need a kick in the groin.

First...?

Well, maybe not first all together. But I see it as the first public step, which is what scares me. Whoever is behind this has enough balls to think they'll be backed while tearing down the Constitution, so they've gone public... If they do turn out to have a strong backing, then I see some bad shit going down sooner or later.

"First they came for the Jews. I didn't speak up, for I was not a Jew... etc. etc. etc.:( "

"In a short press conference, a representative of HolyTrinity Inc. announced that God was pleased with this development, and has ordered "Project Ark II" led by Missourian Noah Allen Thorpe postponed for the time being."

Noone can accuse Christian God of being unreasonable :thumbsup:

When do we get to burn the witches?

even as a Englishman I know this can't work. Seperation of Church and state, right?

What won't work? It's a RESOLUTION. (AKA Baiting) It has no other purpose than to state for the record what the majority opinion is. It changes no laws. It panders to their supporters, and puts their opposition in the dreaded postion of going on record as being against it.
It drives liberals nuts because their supporters demand they come out against it, only to have it turned against them come election time. It is a lose/lose situation if your support base is too stupid to recognize it for what it is.

Not too hard to do. Big white beard, robes, how can you miss him?

No no no ...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/43/160px-George_clinton_funk.jpg

Now go forth and sin no more.

Anyway, what percentage of the voters of Missouri beieve in the Christian version of God?
If it is the majority - as I suspect - you'll have to live with it. Or have a nice day - somewhere else.

Anyway, what percentage of the voters of Missouri beieve in the Christian version of God?
If it is the majority - as I suspect - you'll have to live with it. Or have a nice day - somewhere else.

Just like Saudi Arabia, eh? Just what America needs ...

Actually, I'm an atheist, and I think it's ridiculous to ban voluntary school prayer and religious displays in public.

So long as all religions are equally allowed to practice their beliefs. Muslims have to pray five times a day -- do they get to pray in public schools too?

Nubs.

They can't prove a Christian god exists. They can't even agree on what (s)he is like, or what (s)he said.

Muslims have to pray five times a day -- do they get to pray in public schools too?

Dunno about Missouri, but in Texas, many school districts have special "quiet rooms" where Muslims can go to make salat so as not to disrupt class.

Anyway, what percentage of the voters of Missouri beieve in the Christian version of God?
If it is the majority - as I suspect - you'll have to live with it. Or have a nice day - somewhere else.
The US constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. We're not strictly a democracy.

What won't work? It's a RESOLUTION. (AKA Baiting) It has no other purpose than to state for the record what the majority opinion is. It changes no laws. It panders to their supporters, and puts their opposition in the dreaded postion of going on record as being against it.
It drives liberals nuts because their supporters demand they come out against it, only to have it turned against them come election time. It is a lose/lose situation if your support base is too stupid to recognize it for what it is.

Well, that only backs things up a step. The fact that politicians are manipulating the public on this issue only suggests that the public is foolish for being manipulated like that.

*goes back to having sex with daughter*

Actually, I'm an atheist, and I think it's ridiculous to ban voluntary school prayer and religious displays in public.

So long as all religions are equally allowed to practice their beliefs. Muslims have to pray five times a day -- do they get to pray in public schools too?

Yes they do. And that actually annoys me because I couldn't pray in school.

Just like Saudi Arabia, eh? Just what America needs ...


In all seriousness, Keruvalia, I'm of the opinion that secular Government has had a good run in the 20th century, but has pretty much had it, globally speaking.
I'm afraid that the defenders of secular values are fighting a losing battle.

It isn't just Christianity and Islam that see an upsurge of people who believe in Laws of God, not Laws of Man... it is a megatrend in just about every philosophical and religious system.

First it got serious ( in the wacky sense ) in Iran with Islam.
Next in line was India - Hinduism. The Janata party ( who owe their start to a rolicking TV series )
Then it got to the States - Christianity.
Toss in the death of the ultra-secular states of the old eastern block.
Add in the noises I get from my own family-members ( who are mostly buddhists )...
And a lot of other factors as well.

If you wont believe that secularism is on the way to the scrapheap, it's a case of so long, and thanks for all the fish.

Dunno about Missouri, but in Texas, many school districts have special "quiet rooms" where Muslims can go to make salat so as not to disrupt class.

Meaning they are alowed to pray in school.

The US constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. We're not strictly a democracy.

Define Tyranny..
*shrug*
I know what you are saying.... but if the majority decides that burning witches does not constitute tyranny... then the point becomes somewhat moot.

In all seriousness, Keruvalia, I'm of the opinion that secular Government hs had a good run in the 20th century, but has pretty much had it, globally speaking.
I'm afraid that the defenders of secular values are fighting a losing battle.


Not been to Europe much?

I know what you are saying.... but if the majority decides that burning witches does not constitute tyranny... then the point becomes somewhat moot.

You are incorrect. Witches are entitled to protection from cruel and unusual punishments, no matter how many people want to burn them.

Yes they do. And that actually annoys me because I couldn't pray in school.

Is it actually an issue of not being allowed to pray in school, or is it more not being allowed to take class time for organized prayer? You're allowed to pray at lunch, during breaks, etc., right?

Not been to Europe much?

Been there a lot.
If anything, makes me more confident bout my predictions.
The unification of east ad west europe is yet another blow against secularism.
Yep, we got some 250 million East Europeans connecting culturally, and their opinion of religious moderation sounds like something Opus Dei might have produced.

This concept of not allowing students to pray in school requires greater precision.

What do you mean by "school"? Because I understand school as a delimited area that is considered school property, including the hallways, the playgrounds, schoolyards, parking lots etc.

Q: What is required to pray? What does one have to do to pray?

A: Speak.

If a student is praying within school property, is he not allowed to do so, considering that he is merely speaking?

Been there a lot.
If anything, makes me more confident bout my predictions.
The unification of east ad west europe is yet another blow against secularism.
Yep, we got some 250 million East Europeans connecting culturally, and their opinion of religious moderation sounds like something Opus Dei might have produced.

Clearly you understand nothing of European secularism. For starters... The origin of secularism is European. I won't bother to delve any further.

You are incorrect. Witches are entitled to protection from cruel and unusual punishments, no matter how many people want to burn them.

If the majority decides otherwise, supreme justices will alter their understanding of what cruel and unusual means.

Meaning they are alowed to pray in school.

Yes ... and so are Christians, Jews, and anyone else.

SCOTUS said so.

Is it actually an issue of not being allowed to pray in school, or is it more not being allowed to take class time for organized prayer? You're allowed to pray at lunch, during breaks, etc., right?

Any student may pray in their own fashion provided they do not disrupt the class to do it and provided the teacher or other school official is not leading them in prayer.

Methinks Corneliu wanted to speak in tongues and handle snakes and they said, "No." :p

Well, that only backs things up a step. The fact that politicians are manipulating the public on this issue only suggests that the public is foolish for being manipulated like that.

*goes back to having sex with daughter*

Man, this is old hat political tatics that goes back as far as politicians themselves. You will never find the political hack that would seek to ban resolutions, as it has served whoever the majority was for centuries. It isn't about manipulating the public, it is about manuvering your opposition into a position they can claim the high ground on temporairly, only to have it come back to bite them at a later time.
The fools are the politicians that take the bait and vote against resolutions that have no bearing on law.
It is unfortunate that our educational system doesn't teach more about the actual inner workings of the political system, however, something as simple, old and over used as this should be recognized using just a bit of common sense.

It is unfortunate that our educational system doesn't teach more about the actual inner workings of the political system, however, something as simple, old and over used as this should be recognized using just a bit of common sense.

That is soooo true. I was in one of the last Civics classes in my old high school.

I guess if you don't know how the goverment works; then you won't notice changes? ;)

All you people get so worked up about this. Why not just let democracy take it's course?

Besides, how much of America is going to change as a result of this one little law? So what if the Mississippians have the ten commandments hung up on the wall of the courtroom, or give students the choice to pray when they want. Nothing's going to happen. Life goes on. If your so offended, then move to another state. It's crazy how people call for federal intervention on everything that isn't the way they want.

Screw the constitution. State's rights!

If the majority decides otherwise, supreme justices will alter their understanding of what cruel and unusual means.

Oh my God. You can't believe what you are saying do you?

That is soooo true. I was in one of the last Civics classes in my old high school.

I guess if you don't know how the goverment works; then you won't notice changes? ;)

You're kidding me!? They did away with Civics? You have no idea as to how many gaps you just filled for me. That explains so much.

Is it actually an issue of not being allowed to pray in school, or is it more not being allowed to take class time for organized prayer? You're allowed to pray at lunch, during breaks, etc., right?

That's actually different than what I said in regards that Muslims can pray in school, taking time AWAY from the THEIR education to pray. According to the Supreme Court, that is unconstitutional.

Basically, it speaks volumes about the differences in leadership-formation-process between the Democrats and the Republicans.

If a young Republican is seen as a potential high flyer, he is carfully put through an educational programme to teach him HOW to get his points across - and how to damage the points of the opposition. He'll have all kinds of serious seminars to attend.. he'll learn a couple of things about linguistic programming.
He'll even be taught WHY global warming is nonsense and how to put that point across. ( No, I myself don't think it is nonsense.. but there it is ).
He'll have internships at places like the Cato Institute - where he will be further schooled on being an effective politician.

Meanwhile, the Democratic party has absolutely NOTHING that can function as a post graduate school for becoming an Effective politican.
The best thing our democratic hopeful might get is a load of admonishings to say the occasional good thing about gaiety, or the environment, or diversity, or reading and writing. There will be no attemtp to make him EFFECTIVE.

Is it then any surprise, that no matter HOW bad the GOP screws things up, the Dems can't get any capital out of things?

Clearly you understand nothing of European secularism. For starters... The origin of secularism is European. I won't bother to delve any further.

In places like France I do believe.

Yes ... and so are Christians, Jews, and anyone else.

SCOTUS said so.

That's fine as long as all religions can pray in the same quiet rooms as the Muslims when they are not in there.

Screw the constitution. State's rights!

You scare me.

That's actually different than what I said in regards that Muslims can pray in school, taking time AWAY from the THEIR education to pray. According to the Supreme Court, that is unconstitutional.

Not really. SCOTUS has said that a student may pray in accordance with their religion provided it doesn't disrupt the education of *other* students.

That's fine as long as all religions can pray in the same quiet rooms as the Muslims when they are not in there.

I don't see why that would be a problem. I think it depends on the situation. It's well established that Muslim prayer is a little more involved than just quietly bowing your head for a moment or two.

Though some Christians do believe you're supposed to be completely alone when you pray and I believe that if such is the case, the room should be open to them as well.

Oh my God. You can't believe what you are saying do you?


You seem to be thinking that I deem this a good thing.

Please allow me to put you straight: I write about what WILL happen ( as a basic rule ), and not about what I WANT to happen.

Sir, I regret the oncoming death of secularism.
But that I regret it does not mean I cannot perceive its inevitability.

Meanwhile, the Democratic party has absolutely NOTHING that can function as a post graduate school for becoming an Effective politican.
The best thing our democratic hopeful might get is a load of admonishings to say the occasional good thing about gaiety, or the environment, or diversity, or reading and writing. There will be no attemtp to make him EFFECTIVE.

Is it then any surprise, that no matter HOW bad the GOP screws things up, the Dems can't get any capital out of things?

I thought it was more of a case of trying to be watered down Republicans?

They used to speak directly to the poor and the working class.

For some reason; they seemed to have lost that ability and can only attack.

Even a republican will vote for a democrat is it sounds like that have a plan.

You seem to be thinking that I deem this a good thing.

Please allow me to put you straight: I write about what WILL happen ( as a basic rule ), and not about what I WANT to happen.

Sir, I regret the oncoming death of secularism.
But that I regret it does not mean I cannot perceive its inevitability.

And what do you have as facts to back this claim up?

I thought it was more of a case of trying to be watered down Republicans?

They used to speak directly to the poor and the working class.

For some reason; they seemed to have lost that ability and can only attack.

Even a republican will vote for a democrat is it sounds like that have a plan.


What numbers do the poor and the working class have these days?
More importantly... just what percentage of those people have ( by now ) a strong preference for faith based politics?

But I digress... the simple, uncomfortable truth is that one of the 2 major American parties has allowed itself to be out-formated leadershipwise. What this means is that in any practical contest, things quickly dissolve in a fight between metaphorical Prussian officers of 1870 vz their French counterparts, who, at that time in history, were ignorant on such basic skills as mapreading.

And what do you have as facts to back this claim up?


Depends on which fact you mean.
If the fact you mean is the decline of secularism, all you really need to look at is the wishywashy lackadaisical support fellow European Governments gave to Denmark.

Had ANY country, let us say, France, been serious about secularism... you'd have heard few rousing condemnations on religion in general emanating from the Elysee.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Hmmm must be an election year.

I wonder if they would be ok with Muslim prayer in school and Stars of David on public lands?

Seriously, these people are just so sure that they've got the courts that they just couldn't hold their load any longer.

Man, this is stupid on the part of conservatives. If there is any way to motivate and gel liberal action is the behavior of all these states and the massive attack on personal rights that is occurring across the country. I, for one, say ABOUT TIME. I'm glad that stopped hiding their agenda of Christian fundamentalism. This makes 19 states that I know of that have actively set out to force their Christian beliefs on the public. The backlash is going to be severe and long overdue.

Depends on which fact you mean.
If the fact you mean is the decline of secularism, all you really need to look at is the wishywashy lackadaisical support fellow European Governments gave to Denmark.

Pardon? What does Denmark have to do with this? Those cartoons? It was stupid to print this and really highly inappropriate.

Had ANY country, let us say, France, been serious about secularism... you'd have heard few rousing condemnations on religion in general emanating from the Elysee.

So in other words, you have no facts to back up your statements. Thanks.

Pardon? What does Denmark have to do with this? Those cartoons? It was stupid to print this and really highly inappropriate.



So in other words, you have no facts to back up your statements. Thanks.

Of course it has everything to do with it.
If you can't see the connection, I suppose it is the same blindness you display on what does or does not constitute a civil war.


Oh... and allow me to point you to Le champ des saintes by Jean Raspail,
or.... http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/869
or... http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/852
or... http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/570
or... http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/06/07/specials/naipaul-universal.html

The Missouri govt recognises god? I wanna know what kind of glasses they're wearing, because I sure as hell can't see him.

He's the guy with the big beard! Anyone can recognise him. He looks a bit like santa, but he doenst have any reindeers. and hes really angry. If I had a big beard I wouldnt be angry, Id be happy.

Of course it has everything to do with it.
If you can't see the connection, I suppose it is the same blindness you display on hat does or does not constitute a civil war.

Don't start demagogery with me.

No it doesn't have anything to do with it. I think both sides were in appropriate in the Dutch case. The muslims were inappropriate for storming embassies of the Dutch and Norway and the Dutch were inappropriate for printing those cartoons in the first place.

Seriously, these people are just so sure that they've got the courts that they just couldn't hold their load any longer.

Man, this is stupid on the part of conservatives. If there is any way to motivate and gel liberal action is the behavior of all these states and the massive attack on personal rights that is occurring across the country. I, for one, say ABOUT TIME. I'm glad that stopped hiding their agenda of Christian fundamentalism. This makes 19 states that I know of that have actively set out to force their Christian beliefs on the public. The backlash is going to be severe and long overdue.

You don't seem to comprehend that it is the backlash that we are now experiencing. You also seem to miss the point, purpose and definition of what a resolution is. It is in fact designed to make you over react just exactly as you are. The Key word Jocabia is BAITING. Namely, Liberal Baiting. You cannot fight it by the methods that worked in the past. Communications are different now and liberal tatics have failed to adapt.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Hmmm must be an election year.

I wonder if they would be ok with Muslim prayer in school and Stars of David on public lands?
What's the point of this? It's not a law or anything, it's just more bureaucratic waffle to cover the fact that they're probably not doing anything about actual issues.

Yeah, definitely sounds like electioneering to me.

What's the point of this? It's not a law or anything, it's just more bureaucratic waffle to cover the fact that they're probably not doing anything about actual issues.

Yeah, definitely sounds like electioneering to me.

Yeah true it's pretty pointless. Scotus is gonna knock it down. Same with the anti-abortion law in SD. Did anyone hear about this town in Florida that supposly is gonna be a Catholic-only city? Hope we don't start moving to sectarian violence like in Iraq.(Catholics vs Protestants(Shi'as vs Sunni's))

What numbers do the poor and the working class have these days?
More importantly... just what percentage of those people have ( by now ) a strong preference for faith based politics?

But I digress... the simple, uncomfortable truth is that one of the 2 major American parties has allowed itself to be out-formated leadershipwise. What this means is that in any practical contest, things quickly dissolve in a fight between metaphorical Prussian officers of 1870 vz their French counterparts, who, at that time in history, were ignorant on such basic skills as mapreading.

I think there are probably a lot more poor & working class than there are rich. However, many of them don't bother voting.

I also think that many of them are quite religious, and probably pray often. God knows, they don't get any help from the government!

Yeah true it's pretty pointless. Scotus is gonna knock it down. Same with the anti-abortion law in SD. Did anyone hear about this town in Florida that supposly is gonna be a Catholic-only city? Hope we don't start moving to sectarian violence like in Iraq.(Catholics vs Protestants(Shi'as vs Sunni's))

Actually, if its just a resolution and not a bill, SCOTUS can't really touch it as it isn't affecting any laws.

In all seriousness, Keruvalia, I'm of the opinion that secular Government has had a good run in the 20th century, but has pretty much had it, globally speaking.

I'm afraid that the defenders of secular values are fighting a losing battle.

No, it's just a phase the world is going to. I don't think that we're going to see wall-to-wall theocratic states in Europe or North America anytime in the next few hundred years.

The US constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. We're not strictly a democracy.
This isn't a law, it's not tyranny.

Yes they do. And that actually annoys me because I couldn't pray in school.
So Muslims are allowed to pray in school but Christians aren't? Umm, yeah right.

Yeah true it's pretty pointless. Scotus is gonna knock it down. Same with the anti-abortion law in SD. Did anyone hear about this town in Florida that supposly is gonna be a Catholic-only city? Hope we don't start moving to sectarian violence like in Iraq.(Catholics vs Protestants(Shi'as vs Sunni's))
Do you really think Roe v. Wade will be upheld by the supreme court? I'm not so confident that it will be.

Actually, if its just a resolution and not a bill, SCOTUS can't really touch it as it isn't affecting any laws.

Ok then screw Missouri, It will just be a another bigoted state like Mississippi that now one wants to live in. Missouri doesn't have much going for it anyway except St. Louis.

Don't start demagogery with me.

No it doesn't have anything to do with it. I think both sides were in appropriate in the Dutch case. The muslims were inappropriate for storming embassies of the Dutch and Norway and the Dutch were inappropriate for printing those cartoons in the first place.

That is where you are flipfloppy - and in fact, where the anglosaxon world as a whole is flipfloppy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secularism

version 1. the US interpretation
version 2. The Euro-interpretation

Your version of secularism is a form of indifference. It is so weak, disabling, that you cannot decide which side to back. ( I'll forgive you for confusing denmark and holland. ) A principle that does not tell you how to act is a principle without difference or distinction.

What a european means with secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Europe is not content with merely limiting the role of religion in the public sphere, Europe seeks to exclude religion and religiosity from all forms of public life.

That being so, the 'what to do' is brilliantly clear. If religion turns up in public affairs, it is the role of the State to force OUT of the public realm where it does not belong.

Tolerance equals collaboration.

And make no mistake - if European Secularism fails, the US-light version will fall as well.

Ok then screw Missouri, It will just be a another bigoted state like Mississippi that now one wants to live in. Missouri doesn't have much going for it anyway except St. Louis.

Actually, plenty of people like living in Missouri, we're not all bigots, and St. Louis, while a lovely city, is not the whole state. But thanks for your terribly helpful comments!

Ok then screw Missouri, It will just be a another bigoted state like Mississippi that now one wants to live in. Missouri doesn't have much going for it anyway except St. Louis.
Yeah, but St. Louis is a pretty fun town to party in. Nice bars plus riverboat casinos to gamble in. Funny thing about Missouri though, there are basically only three types of billboards on the highways as far as I can tell. Billboards for Christian book stores, fireworks, and porn shops. Basically I get the idea that the average Missouri citizen spends his time wanking while quoting the bible and setting off bottle rockets.

You don't seem to comprehend that it is the backlash that we are now experiencing. You also seem to miss the point, purpose and definition of what a resolution is. It is in fact designed to make you over react just exactly as you are. The Key word Jocabia is BAITING. Namely, Liberal Baiting. You cannot fight it by the methods that worked in the past. Communications are different now and liberal tatics have failed to adapt.

Actually, the methods that worked in the past are going to be far more effective than ever. In the past cops could go out and kick the crap out of protestors and no one would know unless they were there, because on the news there would tell the story differently than it happened. Today, the videos and pictures will be ALL over the internet. The story will be out before the event is over.

A resolution doesn't have to be law. It declares prayer in school as permissable and it is an act of the government officially recognizing the Christian God which it cannot do.

Actually, plenty of people like living in Missouri, we're not all bigots, and St. Louis, while a lovely city, is not the whole state. But thanks for your terribly helpful comments!

I'm sure there are some great people in Missouri but it's also a Rush Limbaugh red state with folks that are heavy right-wing nuts.

Do you really think Roe v. Wade will be upheld by the supreme court? I'm not so confident that it will be.

I would sererously think before overturning Roe vs Wade. I think most people still believe in legal abortion but with limitations.

Ok then screw Missouri, It will just be a another bigoted state like Mississippi that now one wants to live in. Missouri doesn't have much going for it anyway except St. Louis.

Actually I kinda enjoyed KC, St. Joseph, Independence, and Branson Missouri over St. Louis any day of the year.

Been there a lot.
If anything, makes me more confident bout my predictions.
The unification of east ad west europe is yet another blow against secularism.
Yep, we got some 250 million East Europeans connecting culturally, and their opinion of religious moderation sounds like something Opus Dei might have produced.
No, the only country in the former Eastern Bloc that is especially religious is Poland. The others are still secular. Just because religion is allowed there, doesn't mean that they aren't secular.

Screw the constitution. State's rights!
lol, funny.

Is it then any surprise, that no matter HOW bad the GOP screws things up, the Dems can't get any capital out of things?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know so much? You're not American!

Pardon? What does Denmark have to do with this? Those cartoons? It was stupid to print this and really highly inappropriate.
I disagree. It was high time to let Muslims know that they were not immune to criticism, nor did they have a right to be. (I know someone's going to build a strawman, so I'll say right here that victimising or launching pogroms against Muslims is wrong. just saying that they should know that they will get the same hazing that christianity does)

And make no mistake - if European Secularism fails, the US-light version will fall as well.
It won't. Even if only because Euro-secularism has popular support on its side.

*snip*

I'm still not seeing anything resembling facts coming from you. Now do you have real facts our just more dribble?

<sniptified>

I would sererously think before overturning Roe vs Wade. I think most people still believe in legal abortion but with limitations.
The court isn't bound by the will of the people, only by their interpretation of the constitution. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and bush's other appointee (I forgot his name) can probably be counted on to try to overturn Roe. That means they only need one more of the sitting justices to side with them and many states can say goodbye to safe, legal medical proceedures for women.

Yeah, but St. Louis is a pretty fun town to party in. Nice bars plus riverboat casinos to gamble in. Funny thing about Missouri though, there are basically only three types of billboards on the highways as far as I can tell. Billboards for Christian book stores, fireworks, and porn shops. Basically I get the idea that the average Missouri citizen spends his time wanking while quoting the bible and setting off bottle rockets.


That sounds like most Christian Fundies: Fireworks,Drinking and whacking off to porno. (Like most of the Fundies in GA)

Yeah, but St. Louis is a pretty fun town to party in. Nice bars plus riverboat casinos to gamble in. Funny thing about Missouri though, there are basically only three types of billboards on the highways as far as I can tell. Billboards for Christian book stores, fireworks, and porn shops. Basically I get the idea that the average Missouri citizen spends his time wanking while quoting the bible and setting off bottle rockets.

That's a lie! I've never set off a bottle rocket in my life! ;)

Missouri's other city, Kansas City, also has bars & casinos. I've had plenty of experience with the later.

Actually, the methods that worked in the past are going to be far more effective than ever. In the past cops could go out and kick the crap out of protestors and no one would know unless they were there, because on the news there would tell the story differently than it happened. Today, the videos and pictures will be ALL over the internet. The story will be out before the event is over.

A resolution doesn't have to be law. It declares prayer in school as permissable and it is an act of the government officially recognizing the Christian God which it cannot do.

So no law has been changed, the courts have no jurisdiction.

Actually, the methods that worked in the past are going to be far more effective than ever. In the past cops could go out and kick the crap out of protestors and no one would know unless they were there, because on the news there would tell the story differently than it happened. Today, the videos and pictures will be ALL over the internet. The story will be out before the event is over.

A resolution doesn't have to be law. It declares prayer in school as permissable and it is an act of the government officially recognizing the Christian God which it cannot do.

Ok Gunga Din. Drive on in ignorant bliss and take no prisoners!

Actually, the methods that worked in the past are going to be far more effective than ever. In the past cops could go out and kick the crap out of protestors and no one would know unless they were there, because on the news there would tell the story differently than it happened. Today, the videos and pictures will be ALL over the internet. The story will be out before the event is over.

A resolution doesn't have to be law. It declares prayer in school as permissable and it is an act of the government officially recognizing the Christian God which it cannot do.

How can it not do so?
Let us suppose for argument's sake that the Christain God-conept is nonsense.
Let us then suppose that PI equals 4, and not 22/7.
( I'm sure you'll refuse at least one of these ideas).

I don't see any practical objection to a State declaring that the Chrisian God concept is correct, and that PI equals 22/7.

You may think these Assertions are wrong.
But your belief that they are wrong do not stop the State from making these Assertions.

And I'd bet a substantial amount that the Supreme Court would let the matter stand - no matter which prinicple you quote.

The court isn't bound by the will of the people, only by their interpretation of the constitution. Scalia, Powell, Alito, and bush's other appointee (I forgot his name) can probably be counted on to try to overturn Roe. That means they only need one more of the sitting justices to side with them and many states can say goodbye to safe, legal medical proceedures for women.

Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito.

How can it not do so?
Let us suppose for argument's sake that the Christain God-conept is nonsense.
Let us then suppose that PI equals 4, and not 22/7.
( I'm sure you'll refuse at least one of these ideas).

I don't see any practical objection to a State declaring that the Chrisian God concept is correct, and that PI equals 22/7.

You may think these Assertions are wrong.
But your belief that they are wrong do not stop the State from making these Assertions.

And I'd bet a substantial amount that the Supreme Court would let the matter stand - no matter which prinicple you quote.

Yes, they are perfectly allowed to declare a religion correct. Oh, wait, there's that whole first amendment thing and all. At least, the radical Christian right isn't pretend like they believe in equality or freedom of religion anymore. It's good because I was tired of the lies.

Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito.
Fuck. I said Powell instead of Thomas. I guess they all look alike to me. J/K, honest mistake.

The court isn't bound by the will of the people, only by their interpretation of the constitution. Scalia, Powell, Alito, and bush's other appointee (I forgot his name) can probably be counted on to try to overturn Roe. That means they only need one more of the sitting justices to side with them and many states can say goodbye to safe, legal medical proceedures for women.

Only problem is that Abortion isn't in the constitution. It was actually legal until the early 1900's until the early fundie movement moved to outlaw it. People seem to forget that until the 19th century that we had pretty much a Libertarian republic.

Yes, they are perfectly allowed to declare a religion correct. Oh, wait, there's that whole first amendment thing and all. At least, the radical Christian right isn't pretend like they believe in equality or freedom of religion anymore. It's good because I was tired of the lies.

The first amendment states that CONGRESS cannot make a law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the worship there of.

What does the Missouri Constitution say on this issue? If it says the samething then you have a leg. If not then I'm afraid it is actually constitutional.

Only problem is that Abortion isn't in the constitution. It was actually legal until the early 1900's until the early fundie movement moved to outlaw it. People seem to forget that until the 19th century that we had pretty much a Libertarian republic.
I know abortion isn't in the constitution, but Roe established that abortion falls under the "right to privacy", which technically isn't in the constitution either. Maybe it can be argued that government interference in abortion ammounts to illegal search of one's medical records. Who knows?

I'm sure there are some great people in Missouri but it's also a Rush Limbaugh red state with folks that are heavy right-wing nuts.


While we certainly have some right-wing nuts (hell, even Massachusetts has a few), it's fallacious to characterize Missouri as a "Rush Limbaugh red state." We're really about as purple as they come. Remember that Missouri is also the state that would rather be represented by a dead man than by John Ashcroft... :p

So no law has been changed, the courts have no jurisdiction.

What law declared prayer in school legal? What? None. But then how did the courts get involved? Oh, right, someone brought up a suit. Good thing you don't mind being wrong, over and over. Courts don't only interpret new laws, they also interpret this funny little document called the constitution and whether certain actions by the government violate it.

Last I checked the courts said you can't put a religious in purpose monument on public property whether it's put there by a law or simply an agreement to allow it.

What law declared prayer in school legal? What? None. But then how did the courts get involved? Oh, right, someone brought up a suit. Good thing you don't mind being wrong, over and over. Courts don't only interpret new laws, they also interpret this funny little document called the constitution and whether certain actions by the government violate it.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare apples and oranges.

Last I checked the courts said you can't put a religious in purpose monument on public property whether it's put there by a law or simply an agreement to allow it.

And how is this doing anything like that when it isn't going on a monument nor on public property (and only if its by itself)

The first amendment states that CONGRESS cannot make a law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the worship there of.

What does the Missouri Constitution say on this issue? If it says the samething then you have a leg. If not then I'm afraid it is actually constitutional.

First amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now, of course, you and I both know there is this little thing called stare decisis and that Roberts and several of the other judges are BIG proponents of it. What does stare decisis say? Well, it's says that law here doesn't only apply to actual laws, but also actions on the part of the government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#4
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

In other words, the intent of the clause is clear, and the purpose was to refer to all legislative actions not just actual laws.

I think we can all agree that this is a legislative action that seeks to advance religion and that IS the primary purpose of the action.

While we certainly have some right-wing nuts (hell, even Massachusetts has a few), it's fallacious to characterize Missouri as a "Rush Limbaugh red state." We're really about as purple as they come. Remember that Missouri is also the state that would rather be represented by a dead man than by John Ashcroft... :p

Very true. In Kansas City, I saw Kerry signs all over the place, far outnumbering the Bush signs. I suspect St. Louis was similar. If I were drawing a red/blue map, Missouri would be polka-dotted.

*facepalm*

For what it's worth, at least one Missourian thinks this is idiotic...
More than one.

First amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Yes Congress meaning the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, The FEDERAL Legislature.

Now, of course, you and I both know there is this little thing called stare decisis and that Roberts and several of the other judges are BIG proponents of it. What does stare decisis say? Well, it's says that law here doesn't only apply to actual laws, but also actions on the part of the government.

yea but what does the fact that this is at the STATE and not the FEDERAL level have to do with that? What does the Missouri Constitution say on this issue?

Very true. In Kansas City, I saw Kerry signs all over the place, far outnumbering the Bush signs. I suspect St. Louis was similar. If I were drawing a red/blue map, Missouri would be polka-dotted.

It is a known fact that cities tend to vote Dem and everyone else Republican.

I know abortion isn't in the constitution, but Roe established that abortion falls under the "right to privacy", which technically isn't in the constitution either. Maybe it can be argued that government interference in abortion ammounts to illegal search of one's medical records. Who knows?

That's why we need an amendment to right of privacy. We also need an amendment for equal rights of women. We are the only (western) nation that still treats women as second class.

While we certainly have some right-wing nuts (hell, even Massachusetts has a few), it's fallacious to characterize Missouri as a "Rush Limbaugh red state." We're really about as purple as they come. Remember that Missouri is also the state that would rather be represented by a dead man than by John Ashcroft...

Maybe I was wrong...........sorry.

alright this is just way to fucked up, fuck all of you religous zealouts, you can try and put all the religion you want in the government, but no matter what happens all religion is false and your "belifes" will be your own downfall, and the religion will collapse along with the state. You cannot force a religion down anyones throat. One day you will all be dead and thats it, have fun with you life, dont live it for a mythical "god".:upyours:

Yes Congress meaning the NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, The FEDERAL Legislature.

Haha. Yes. And that was true at the time. You like to ignore the fact that the bill of rights has since been applied to the states by another amendment.

yea but what does the fact that this is at the STATE and not the FEDERAL level have to do with that? What does the Missouri Constitution say on this issue?
Seriously, are you really going to pretend it's the late 18th century or are you actually going to acknowledge more current amendments?

One has to wonder about someone who enters every thread completely ignoring the current application of the bill of rights to the states and requiring someone to re-explain it to him in every thread. It really doesn't help your credibility.

Missouri's other city, Kansas City, also has bars & casinos. I've had plenty of experience with the later.

There are other cities in Missouri besides Kansas City and St. Louis! Like, um...those other places...that are not KC or St. Louis. Y'know. Them.

:p

I know abortion isn't in the constitution, but Roe established that abortion falls under the "right to privacy", which technically isn't in the constitution either. Maybe it can be argued that government interference in abortion ammounts to illegal search of one's medical records. Who knows?

Afraid not, your medical records have already been given out to all sorts of data sharing corporations, credit reporting agencies, banks, etc.
The sad fact is, instead of trying to maintain Roe with the fervor the left has had, they should be fighting for a constitutional right to privacy. They would have huge public support, however, their representation is on the take from the very same corporate lobby the republicans are.

Snip


I'm religous but I don't beleive in god and I definatly believe in the seperation of church & state.

I'm religous but I don't beleive in god and I definatly believe in the seperation of church & state.

So do I. Religion should most definitely be protected from the infringement of government.

So do I. Religion should most definitely be protected from the infringement of government.
And vice versa, right?

The first amendment states that CONGRESS cannot make a law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the worship there of.

What does the Missouri Constitution say on this issue? If it says the samething then you have a leg. If not then I'm afraid it is actually constitutional.

You forget that the Constitution only allows States the rights that are not allowed/denied Congress. As the right to Freedom of Religion has been addressed as Congress' right to address, State's have no rights to impose any religion.

So do I. Religion should most definitely be protected from the infringement of government.

And vice versa. Religion can be harmed by an infringement in either direction.

You forget that the Constitution only allows States the rights that are not allowed/denied Congress. As the right to Freedom of Religion has been addressed as Congress' right to address, State's have no rights to impose any religion.

Actually, it states that CONGRESS cannot make a law regaring a state religion. Show me in the Constitution or a federal law that states that a State can't do so?

note: This isn't even establishing a state religion.

Very true. In Kansas City, I saw Kerry signs all over the place, far outnumbering the Bush signs. I suspect St. Louis was similar. If I were drawing a red/blue map, Missouri would be polka-dotted.

Which color would be the dots?

Let us then suppose that PI equals 4, and not 22/7.
( I'm sure you'll refuse at least one of these ideas).

Not sure if you got it wrong on purpose or not, but Pi is irrational, and doesn't equal any fraction...like...
22/7 = 3.142857142857142857...(repeated)
Pi = 3.141592653589793...
Really, you'd get closer with 2 plus the square root of 2 (1.41421356...)

Meh.

P.S. http://whatispi.ytmnd.com/

Actually, it states that CONGRESS cannot make a law regaring a state religion. Show me in the Constitution or a federal law that states that a State can't do so?

note: This isn't even establishing a state religion.

I love how conservatives love stare decisis unless, of course, it protects individual rights. Gee, I sure hope I'm not violating the state of Missouri's right to freedom of religion. I know how state's can be so hurt when individuals have rights instead of the state.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This was a clear amendment designed to make sure that states don't abridge the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. Keep pretending otherwise. Don't worry. I'm not laughing at you. Well... at least you can't hear it.

I love how conservatives love stare decisis unless, of course, it protects individual rights. Gee, I sure hope I'm not violating the state of Missouri's right to freedom of religion. I know how state's can be so hurt when individuals have rights instead of the state.

Ok then show me the Supreme Court case that says that a state cannot pass a resolution recognizing God.

Does anyone else find this extremely frightening? It seems like the first step towards a tyrannic government, the exact kind the US was fighting to get away from 200 years ago.

And this can't get through the Supreme Court... it is a direct violation of the first Amendment.

"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."

The US was built on freedom. This isn't freedom.

Eh, don't worry, this shit wouln't fly in a blue state. The more like this they get, the more chance we have of splitting with them, so bring on the Jesus.

Eh, don't worry, this shit wouln't fly in a blue state. The more like this they get, the more chance we have of splitting with them, so bring on the Jesus.

TREASON! TREASON! TREASON!

Ok then show me the Supreme Court case that says that a state cannot pass a resolution recognizing God.

Ha. I was going to ask if this ever works, but the fact is it does. We both know that there are Supreme Court decisions amounting to what you are asking, but you have no issue with being intellectually disingenuous so you will say it doesn't specifically references resolutions of this type. Seriously, it's amazing to me how little truth matters to some people.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/03.html#2
In Wallace v. Jaffree,118 the Court held invalid an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer.'' Because the only evidence in the record indicated that the words ''or prayer'' had been added to the existing statute by amendment for the sole purpose of returning voluntary prayer to the public schools, the Court found that the first prong of the Lemon test had been violated, i.e. that the statute was invalid as being entirely motivated by a purpose of advancing religion. The Court characterized the legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools as ''quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday,''119 and both Justices Powell and O'Connor in concurring opinions suggested that other state statutes authorizing moments of silence might pass constitutional muster.120

It says legislative acts for the purpose of advancing religion is unconstitutional. This resolution is a legislative act with that EXPRESS purpose.

Actually, it states that CONGRESS cannot make a law regaring a state religion. Show me in the Constitution or a federal law that states that a State can't do so?

note: This isn't even establishing a state religion.
Americans are amazing. Without even establishing a state church they have managed to build a country significantly less secular than England, Finland, Sweden or numerous other countries which actually have state churches.

I love how conservatives love stare decisis unless, of course, it protects individual rights.
Isn't stare decisis the doctrine of recognizing and following legal precedents? Sounds like an inherently conservative idea to me.

TREASON! TREASON! TREASON!
Calm down. Revnia, I think the whole "right to secede" debate was settled some 141 years ago.

Calm down. Revnia, I think the whole "right to secede" debate was settled some 141 years ago.

To talk of Secession should be considered Treasonous. My opinion :D

Americans are amazing. Without even establishing a state church they have managed to build a country significantly less secular than England, Finland, Sweden or numerous other countries which actually have state churches.


Isn't stare decisis the doctrine of recognizing and following legal precedents? Sounds like an inherently conservative idea to me.

It's supposed to be. However, conservatives always reject it when they don't like the precedent, like right to privacy or the Lemmon test.

Actually, it states that CONGRESS cannot make a law regaring a state religion. Show me in the Constitution or a federal law that states that a State can't do so?

note: This isn't even establishing a state religion.

You mean, show you where the Constitution gives States the right to manage only the areas Congress doesnt?

Um, ok: Try Amendment 10 to the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.

So, the converse is true. If any area is entitled to Congress (as freedom of religion is), the States have no rights.

Even better. Directly quoted from the Constitution of the State of Missouri: Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 7:
That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Now, Corny, STFU... :D

Hmm. That's not going to work out, it is a violation of the first amendment. I, like the state of Missouri, am Christian. But just because I'm happy to see that more people are Christian doesn't mean that I'm totally on Missouri's side. People are going to get quite angry.

And people are acting as if this will be in US law, it's not for federal consideration, it's just for Missouri, not any other state (that I know of.. North Carolina's definitely not doing that!):rolleyes:

The seperation of church and state was enacted to stop the nation from having a state-sponsered church and decrease the power of the church. In many European nations at the time churches represented a large power in the government. Most were corrupt and lived like the nobility. This was true during before the French Revolution where the Church(2nd Estate) wielded trmendous power and weath at the expense of the poor and middle class. In America the sepreation was to stop larger/powerful groups such as the Puritians oppressing smaller and liberal christian groups such as the Mennonites and the Quakers. Today the churches in the U.S wield tremendous power and wealth and are now trying to move towards political power moving towards a theocracy.

The seperation of church and state was enacted to stop the nation from having a state-sponsered church and decrease the power of the church. In many European nations at the time churches represented a large power in the government. Most were corrupt and lived like the nobility. This was true during before the French Revolution where the Church(2nd Estate) wielded trmendous power and weath at the expense of the poor and middle class. In America the sepreation was to stop larger/powerful groups such as the Puritians oppressing smaller and liberal christian groups such as the Mennonites and the Quakers. Today the churches in the U.S wield tremendous power and wealth and are now trying to move towards political power moving towards a theocracy.

Honestly, did you even read the rest of the thread? If you had, you'd see that we didnt really need a history lesson. Thanks though :)

Honestly, did you even read the rest of the thread? If you had, you'd see that we didnt really need a history lesson. Thanks though :)
Touchy are we?

Let's just say that Amendment 1 allows freedom of religion.



Enuff Said! :)

you can always tell when something like this happens it either in the US, or my school. take your pick.

Actually, I'm an atheist, and I think it's ridiculous to ban voluntary school prayer and religious displays in public.

I'm a Christain, and I agree entirly :)


To talk of Secession should be considered Treasonous. My opinion :D

Sign me up! Treason season's open :)

I love log cabins.

Hell yea! Me and my friend are currently planning the building of one for us to live in. We need to decide where we wanna have it.


What's the point of this? It's not a law or anything, it's just more bureaucratic waffle to cover the fact that they're probably not doing anything about actual issues.

Yeah, definitely sounds like electioneering to me.

Exactly


Actually, the methods that worked in the past are going to be far more effective than ever. In the past cops could go out and kick the crap out of protestors and no one would know unless they were there, because on the news there would tell the story differently than it happened. Today, the videos and pictures will be ALL over the internet. The story will be out before the event is over.

You are *so* naieve. Talk to a Black Cross street medic, or a lawyer who handles these kinds of things, or anyone who attends demonstrations regularly. You'll see just how blind you are.

DC is one of the better cities as far as this goes, if only because the police are more used to it, and less likely to react unpredictibly. Althogh it also means they are much better at doing it and not getting in trouble. Where as in Boston a cop will break your jaw if you try to get his badge number (which he is concealing illegally) because you saw him breaking the law, in DC you'll just be maced in the face, charged with assulting an officer because some of your vomit landed on his boot toe, arrested, and roughed up a bit, but not too bad (no lasting injurues), down at the station. Both of these are true stories, by the by.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare apples and oranges.

accully....

http://www.people.virginia.edu/%7Erjh9u/apporang.html


We are the only (western) nation that still treats women as second class.

Come off it. How so?

I repeat. The lawmakers promoting this law need a groin kick.

You are *so* naieve. Talk to a Black Cross street medic, or a lawyer who handles these kinds of things, or anyone who attends demonstrations regularly. You'll see just how blind you are.

DC is one of the better cities as far as this goes, if only because the police are more used to it, and less likely to react unpredictibly. Althogh it also means they are much better at doing it and not getting in trouble. Where as in Boston a cop will break your jaw if you try to get his badge number (which he is concealing illegally) because you saw him breaking the law, in DC you'll just be maced in the face, charged with assulting an officer because some of your vomit landed on his boot toe, arrested, and roughed up a bit, but not too bad (no lasting injurues), down at the station. Both of these are true stories, by the by.

Good thing actually reading my post isn't a requirement for reply. I totally think that the government suppresses activism with violence. However, the naive notion is that which believes this hasn't ALWAYS been true. Do you think when they were demonstrating for racial equality that the cops just stood by and watched, but when we demonstrate for equal treatment for LGBTs that they'll beat the crap out of us? The premise doesn't match up with history. Social change has always required a few cracked skulls. Only the 'revolutionaries' are willing to 'discuss' the issue peacefully. Change has always been painful in America. It's not a new thing.

I repeat. The lawmakers promoting this law need a groin kick.

'Tain't a law, friend.

i think Missouri has the right idea but is misguided (I live in Missouri:) )

Once i was at this seminore where this guy talked about how the American government, who established itself on freedom (a BIG one being freedom of religion, that's why all the Protestants settled in America), is now, in a sense, rejecting religion and banning people from practicing it in many ways, such as in public schools. They became so obsessed with making sure no one of a religous minority was offended that they completley made public places in America athiest. It makes sense to people when they witness it but if you think about it, its keeping people from expressing and learning more about their religions. that sounds wrong, in a way, but many would say its not

Good thing actually reading my post isn't a requirement for reply. I totally think that the government suppresses activism with violence. However, the naive notion is that which believes this hasn't ALWAYS been true. Do you think when they were demonstrating for racial equality that the cops just stood by and watched, but when we demonstrate for equal treatment for LGBTs that they'll beat the crap out of us? The premise doesn't match up with history. Social change has always required a few cracked skulls. Only the 'revolutionaries' are willing to 'discuss' the issue peacefully. Change has always been painful in America. It's not a new thing.

Of course violence on the part of the government is nothing new, I never claimed it was. But you claimed that such tactics wouldn't work anymore, as "the video would be on the internet" or some such. That's why the police steal all recording devices as "evidence." And maby return them, definatly sans tape.

The part of you post I was refering to was that this stuff would no longer fly. It does and will.

If I am mistaken as to what you were implying, I apologize.

'Tain't a law, friend.
Regardless.

Regardless.

Aye. I was clarifying semantics, not disgareeing.

As a rule, politicians deserve to be kicked in the groin.

Wow....all I can say. Theocracy is a little much though.

Of course violence on the part of the government is nothing new, I never claimed it was. But you claimed that such tactics wouldn't work anymore, as "the video would be on the internet" or some such. That's why the police steal all recording devices as "evidence." And maby return them, definatly sans tape.

The part of you post I was refering to was that this stuff would no longer fly. It does and will.

If I am mistaken as to what you were implying, I apologize.

I didn't say they wouldn't work. I said they no longer have the ability to completely hide such things and they don't. Are you sersiously claiming that thirty years ago these tapes of beatings would have been seen by ANYONE? It doesn't fly. Occasionally effective when it comes to hiding the suppression of protests is not effective at all.

I didn't say they wouldn't work. I said they no longer have the ability to completely hide such things and they don't. Are you sersiously claiming that thirty years ago these tapes of beatings would have been seen by ANYONE? It doesn't fly. Occasionally effective when it comes to hiding the suppression of protests is not effective at all.


Video cameras and the internet have been around for a while, and how many taped beatings have you seen? How many videos of police gorssly abusing power, or brutalizing protesters? I've seen one. In real life, I've seen several. I've been told of dozens by eye witnesses. And the accual number is thousands.

Also, unless the mainstream media reports it, no one pays attention. On the internet, you gatta seek out the info, and most people just don't go seeking for that stuff.


It happens much much MUCH more then it's recorded, or is seen, or known about. That was my point. That they can, are, and will continue to hide it effectivly.

The Missouri govt recognises god? I wanna know what kind of glasses they're wearing, because I sure as hell can't see him.
Well, since you asked...

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-01-06.jpg

Video cameras and the internet have been around for a while, and how many taped beatings have you seen? How many videos of police gorssly abusing power, or brutalizing protesters? I've seen one. In real life, I've seen several. I've been told of dozens by eye witnesses. And the accual number is thousands.

Also, unless the mainstream media reports it, no one pays attention. On the internet, you gatta seek out the info, and most people just don't go seeking for that stuff.


It happens much much MUCH more then it's recorded, or is seen, or known about. That was my point. That they can, are, and will continue to hide it effectivly.

If you'll only seen one, you should look harder.

There is a bias in the American media, but its Conservative and not liberal. I believe Krugman put it best when he stated that if the GOP were to state that the earth was flat, while the DP states that the earth is round... the headlines would state something like... "Flat or Round? Views differ on the shape of the Earth."

The media is doing nothing to aide the american people to aquire the facts on what is really going on. The fact that 40+% of americans still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is proof.

Come off it. How so?

1) CR stigmitizing women who work as femminazis or sluts. Uneducated women still believe that their whole point in life is to be housewives and babymakers.(Thier are still women who live exactly back in the 50's)

2) CR stance against abortion and conception. Not allowing women to control their own bodies. Limiting abortion to cities with clinics. Making doctors afraid to perform abortion by clinic bombings/assainations.

3) Not granting equal rights to women.

4) Calling women politicians bitches. Still having the idea that women shouldn't hold any power politically.

1) CR stigmitizing women who work as femminazis or sluts. Uneducated women still believe that their whole point in life is to be housewives and babymakers.(Thier are still women who live exactly back in the 50's)

2) CR stance against abortion and conception. Not allowing women to control their own bodies. Limiting abortion to cities with clinics. Making doctors afraid to perform abortion by clinic bombings/assainations.

3) Not granting equal rights to women.

4) Calling women politicians bitches. Still having the idea that women shouldn't hold any power politically.

Ever consider a software upgrade?

Enuff Said! :)

If you are going to quote Stan Lee, get it right. ;)

'nuff said.

Touchy are we?

Let's just say that Amendment 1 allows freedom of religion.



Enuff Said! :)

LOL...once again, read the thread.

This argument had been brought up and Corny replied that the First Amendment didnt apply to this situation because it's the State Congress drafting the resolution, not the Federal Congress.

To this I replied with Amendment 10 of the US Constitution (States' rights) and the section from the Missouri State Constitution that disallows legislation of any kind - whether a bill or resolution - from discriminating among the different religions...

State Congress drafting the resolution, not the Federal Congress.

Pet peeve. It's the State Legislature, not State Congress. The US Congress is called Congress because under the Articles of Confederation it was called the United States in Congress Assembled.

To talk of Secession should be considered Treasonous. My opinion

Funny, here I was thinking that self determination was a fundamental human right.

1) CR stigmitizing women who work as femminazis or sluts. Uneducated women still believe that their whole point in life is to be housewives and babymakers.(Thier are still women who live exactly back in the 50's)

2) CR stance against abortion and conception. Not allowing women to control their own bodies. Limiting abortion to cities with clinics. Making doctors afraid to perform abortion by clinic bombings/assainations.

3) Not granting equal rights to women.

4) Calling women politicians bitches. Still having the idea that women shouldn't hold any power politically.

You are talking about a small minority, not most of America. So no, we don't treat women like second class citizens. A small groups wants to. Which can be said for every single nation on earth. So your point is shot to shit.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being a housewife/"babymaker," as you seem to imply.

To talk of Secession should be considered Treasonous. My opinion :D
But expressing political opinions is not treasonous. Yet.

4) Calling women politicians bitches. Still having the idea that women shouldn't hold any power politically.

As Katzistanza said, only a minority believe those things. In fact, the Governor in my state is a woman, as is the Secretary of State (who in Michigan has a great deal of influence and is directly elected), one of our Senators, and several of our Representatives.

As Katzistanza said, only a minority believe those things. In fact, the Governor in my state is a woman, as is the Secretary of State (who in Michigan has a great deal of influence and is directly elected), one of our Senators, and several of our Representatives.

I was refering to Right-wing pundits about Hillary(Bitch, Lady Macbeth like) and Cynthia McKinney(Refering to her as a communist.)

You are talking about a small minority, not most of America. So no, we don't treat women like second class citizens. A small groups wants to. Which can be said for every single nation on earth. So your point is shot to shit.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being a housewife/"babymaker," as you seem to imply.

People like Pat Robertson and most of the televangelists/preachers and they have major innfluence on the majority of America. I have heard Pat proclaim that a womens role in life is to just to stay at home and have babies. There isn't anything worng with it if it is a choice not the only option. Women have come along way but are still lagging compared to other western nations that have equality fr women.

*facepalm*

For what it's worth, at least one Missourian thinks this is idiotic...

I'm right there with you....

Which color would be the dots?



Not sure if you got it wrong on purpose or not, but Pi is irrational, and doesn't equal any fraction...like...
22/7 = 3.142857142857142857...(repeated)
Pi = 3.141592653589793...
Really, you'd get closer with 2 plus the square root of 2 (1.41421356...)

Meh.

P.S. http://whatispi.ytmnd.com/

As a PS, the whole idea was to introduce at least ONE idea ( I gave 2 ) that would strike a goodly-sized part of the population as humbug, and then postulate that a state assembly made it the official opinion. Opinions can be dead-wrong, but that doesn't stop opinions from existing, nor does it stop Assemblies from expressing them. ( which IMHO is the whole point of the exercise ).

LOL...once again, read the thread.

This argument had been brought up and Corny replied that the First Amendment didnt apply to this situation because it's the State Congress drafting the resolution, not the Federal Congress.

To this I replied with Amendment 10 of the US Constitution (States' rights) and the section from the Missouri State Constitution that disallows legislation of any kind - whether a bill or resolution - from discriminating among the different religions...

I've read most of the posts on this thread. I think someone else brought up the problem about granting states too much power were they become little fiefdoms and also the problem of what would happen if states decide to pull out of the union. While i'm for states having laws the fed govt. should step in when states pass laws that are unconstitutional.(SCOTUS) Missoouri's law while dumb ins't unconstitutional because it doen't go as far as to declare christianity as the state religion but it is a slippery slope towrds it.

snip
Didn't know I was quoting Stan Lee thanks for the Info

Good for Missouri.:D

People like Pat Robertson and most of the televangelists/preachers and they have major innfluence on the majority of America.
Total, unadulterated, bull-frakking shit! :mad:

I've read most of the posts on this thread. I think someone else brought up the problem about granting states too much power were they become little fiefdoms and also the problem of what would happen if states decide to pull out of the union. While i'm for states having laws the fed govt. should step in when states pass laws that are unconstitutional.(SCOTUS) Missoouri's law while dumb ins't unconstitutional because it doen't go as far as to declare christianity as the state religion but it is a slippery slope towrds it.
There is actually a mechanism for challenging unconstitutional state laws, you know. It's called the Judiciary. :rolleyes:

granting states too much power

Again, a pet peeve. States are not granted powers. They retain all of the powers that they didn't delegate to the Federal government. The States can grant Uncle Sam powers, but not vice verse.

Anyway, I think the Missouri Supreme Court should step in and stop this madness. It doesn't have to get to Uncle Sam.

But if this is really what the people of Missouri want, I don't really care. They can do their thing, as long as they do it down there, and not up here. But really, I expect more from the people of Missouri.

As a PS, the whole idea was to introduce at least ONE idea ( I gave 2 ) that would strike a goodly-sized part of the population as humbug, and then postulate that a state assembly made it the official opinion. Opinions can be dead-wrong, but that doesn't stop opinions from existing, nor does it stop Assemblies from expressing them. ( which IMHO is the whole point of the exercise ).

Eh, just wanted to makes sure you didn't think 22/7 = Pi.

As Katzistanza said, only a minority believe those things. In fact, the Governor in my state is a woman, as is the Secretary of State (who in Michigan has a great deal of influence and is directly elected), one of our Senators, and several of our Representatives.

ZOMG JENNIFER GRANHOLM.

But expressing political opinions is not treasonous. Yet.

of course, if you're in canada, 'treason' gets you major-party status to the Federal House of Commons...

I was refering to Right-wing pundits about Hillary(Bitch, Lady Macbeth like) and Cynthia McKinney(Refering to her as a communist.)



People like Pat Robertson and most of the televangelists/preachers and they have major innfluence on the majority of America. I have heard Pat proclaim that a womens role in life is to just to stay at home and have babies. There isn't anything worng with it if it is a choice not the only option. Women have come along way but are still lagging compared to other western nations that have equality fr women.

No, women are equally free here. The existance of a group that thinks that this is not good doesn't change that. In every western nation, there is a group that says and thinks the exact same things.

The fact reamins, that no matter what Pat Robertson says, women are equally free in the United States.


Total, unadulterated, bull-frakking shit! :mad:

Seconded.


of course, if you're in canada, 'treason' gets you major-party status to the Federal House of Commons...

In the US, 'treason' got you idol status and hero-worship (the founding fathers). 'Treason' isn't always a bad thing, nor is it always a good thing. It's one of those subjective things, depends on what you did, and to who, and why.

Well, according to many people Christianity has shaped the USA. Which is why I'm lobbying my congressman to ban taking the Lord's name in vain, working on Sundays, and worshiping anyone but Jesus.

Nah. Won't work. Religious politically active people all worship Bush. :rolleyes:

Nah. Won't work. Religious politically active people all worship Bush. :rolleyes:


Not Tony Campolo! My favorite little evangelical :)

People like Pat Robertson and most of the televangelists/preachers and they have major innfluence on the majority of America.
Total, unadulterated, bull-frakking shit!


Total, unadulterated, bull-frakking shit! :mad:

Not really. It's quite adulterated. True, he doesn't reach the majority. But the minority that he does reach, and that does believe in him is dispropportionatly adherent to his causes.

He may only get to, let's say 20% of the people, but he gets ignored by 75% and opposed by 15%. The large inertia and small numbers of the anti-Robertsion, pro-reason side makes the Pro-Roberson side a power player. In political terms, a majority.

To talk of Secession should be considered Treasonous. My opinion
Unfortunately your Constitution's first Amendment disagrees with you, and its opinion is law and yours is not. Talking of secession isn't really treason. Attempting it, is.


Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 7:
That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

*gasp*

Missouri violated their own constitution! :eek:

Well, since you asked...

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-01-06.jpg
I've seen several of his cartoons. That's the best so far!

1) CR stigmitizing women who work as femminazis or sluts. Uneducated women still believe that their whole point in life is to be housewives and babymakers.(Thier are still women who live exactly back in the 50's)

2) CR stance against abortion and conception. Not allowing women to control their own bodies. Limiting abortion to cities with clinics. Making doctors afraid to perform abortion by clinic bombings/assainations.

3) Not granting equal rights to women.

4) Calling women politicians bitches. Still having the idea that women shouldn't hold any power politically.
None of them are laws, just flawed cultural ideas. I live in a western country where abortion is illegal. Not just opposed by religious types, actually illegal. Though we do have a female president.

It's also not fair to associate conservative Christians with abortion clinic bombers. It's like associating liberals with communists.

Funny, here I was thinking that self determination was a fundamental human right.
The US doesn't respect a lot of fundamental human rights.

In the US, 'treason' got you idol status and hero-worship (the founding fathers). 'Treason' isn't always a bad thing, nor is it always a good thing.
That's an understatement. Americans treat the founding fathers like Gods.

That's an understatement. Americans treat the founding fathers like Gods.

Which is to say that we invoke their name without having any idea what they stand for just to guilt our intellectual opponents into backing down from their positions.

I've even heard religious fundamentalists invoke the name of Thomas Jefferson, a commited deist, to support their fundie, Caesaropapist views. But it stands to reason. They understand their history about as well as they understand Jesus.

The founding fathers were Liberals. :D

The founding fathers were Liberals. :D
Classic liberals, they were.

Personally, I think there should be a Marilyn Manson concert there very soon and an anti-christian rally...nothin' like a bunch of atheists and agnostics to ruffle their religious feathers :p :cool:

Classic liberals, they were.
Classic liberalism evolved. Modern Liberalism it became. :D

Classic liberals, they were.

Classy liberals, they were :)

TREASON! TREASON! TREASON!

it's only treason when you lose......if you win you get to call it a natural right to rebellion or revolution.

Which is to say that we invoke their name without having any idea what they stand for just to guilt our intellectual opponents into backing down from their positions.

I've even heard religious fundamentalists invoke the name of Thomas Jefferson, a commited deist, to support their fundie, Caesaropapist views. But it stands to reason. They understand their history about as well as they understand Jesus.

And I have come to think of deist's as the closet agnostics of the Enlightenment.

Calm down. Revnia, I think the whole "right to secede" debate was settled some 141 years ago.

How cute. We have all the countries we're ever going to have. USAeterna! Wait a minute that sounds like Roma Aeterna, whatever happened to those smooth Italians? And why?

Who needs a right to be able to do something anyway?

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Hmmm must be an election year.

I wonder if they would be ok with Muslim prayer in school and Stars of David on public lands?
they should be fine with it. no where does it state that only a Christian God will be allowed to be displayed.

just that a "Greater Power" is reconized. They are striving for a "Freedom of Religion". and not just concentrating on "Freedom From Religion."

They are saying everyone has a right to be proud of their Religion and have a right to publicly show it. Whether it be God, Yahweh, Allah, Budda, Zeus, Ra, or the Flying Spagetti Monster.

it's only treason when you lose......if you win you get to call it a natural right to rebellion or revolution.

Actually, in this case, it is treason as this issue was already settled.

Actually, in this case, it is treason as this issue was already settled.

So do you think the only legitimate possible national borders are the current ones?

So do you think the only legitimate possible national borders are the current ones?

I know our borders are legitament as they have stayed the same since we purchased the rest of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexicans.

I know our borders are legitament as they have stayed the same since we purchased the rest of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexicans.don't forget, our borders were also expanded when Alaska and Hawaii became states. :D

don't forget, our borders were also expanded when Alaska and Hawaii became states. :D

Alaska and hawaii were already were ours to begin with. Alaska when we purchased it from Russia and Hawaii when we annexed it.

Alaska and hawaii were already were ours to begin with. Alaska when we purchased it from Russia and Hawaii when we annexed it. True, but they were territories. while technically US soil, they were not part of the US.

or are you including all territories in your borders statement? If so, then I misunderstood and stand corrected.

True, but they were territories. while technically US soil, they were not part of the US.

So Puerto Rico isn't part of the US? What about Guam and American Samoa?

or are you including all territories in your borders statement? If so, then I misunderstood and stand corrected.

:) No Problem JuNii.

Does anyone else find this extremely frightening? It seems like the first step towards a tyrannic government, the exact kind the US was fighting to get away from 200 years ago.

And this can't get through the Supreme Court... it is a direct violation of the first Amendment.

"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."

The US was built on freedom. This isn't freedom.

Yes, I find several things individuals do as frightening. No one seems to respect what this country was founded on, instead everyone wants to impose thier own warped sence of right and wrong on others.

I know our borders are legitament as they have stayed the same since we purchased the rest of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexicans.

So exactly how long do borders have to be stable to be set in stone for all eternity?

So exactly how long do borders have to be stable to be set in stone for all eternity?

We have treaties that do not have expiration dates :D

After all the US and Canada does have the longest undefended peaceful border in the world.

We have treaties that do not have expiration dates :D

After all the US and Canada does have the longest undefended peaceful border in the world.

I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not talking about one country taking territory from another, I'm talking about a group/nation/people within an established country that want to leave it. Creating new nation-states. I guess my question, to be more clear, is are the current nation-states in the world the only legitimate ones? If secession is treason, then self determination is not a fundamental human right.

I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not talking about one country taking territory from another, I'm talking about a group/nation/people within an established country that want to leave it. Creating new nation-states. I guess my question, to be more clear, is are the current nation-states in the world the only legitimate ones? If secession is treason, then self determination is not a fundamental human right.

Indivdual self determination is generally accepted as a human right.

Collective self determination ain't.

To reconclude: secession equals treason. ( it seems to be the only issue Corneliu and Bogmarsh will ever agree upon ).

I guess I'm not being very clear. I'm not talking about one country taking territory from another, I'm talking about a group/nation/people within an established country that want to leave it. Creating new nation-states. I guess my question, to be more clear, is are the current nation-states in the world the only legitimate ones? If secession is treason, then self determination is not a fundamental human right.

In the United States, we already had settled if the Individual states have the right to secede from the Union and fought a war for four years and the states that seceded lost. because they lost, we settled the issue of the righ to secession and no US State has the right to secede.

In the United States, we already had settled if the Individual states have the right to secede from the Union and fought a war for four years and the states that lseceded ost. because they lost, we settled the issue of the righ to secession and no US State has the right to secede.

I thought we were a bit more civilized than "might makes right".

Also, I'm not just talking about the US (this isn't so much directed at you Corneliu, you've only addressed the US) I'm talking about around the world. If secession is treason, than the US, Ireland, Norway, Panama, and a number of other countries around the world are illegitimate. Unless the ability to win independence by force is the only measure of legitimacy. But again, I thought we were better than that.

I thought we were a bit more civilized than "might makes right".

Also, I'm not just talking about the US (this isn't so much directed at you Corneliu, you've only addressed the US) I'm talking about around the world. If secession is treason, than the US, Ireland, Norway, Panama, and a number of other countries around the world are illegitimate. Unless the ability to win independence by force is the only measure of legitimacy. But again, I thought we were better than that.

In one word; WHY????

I hate to burst anyone's bubble - but 'everything goes if you can pull it off' has been THE guiding principle of International Law ever since Hugo Grotius.

Might makes Right is the legal basis for most international laws we have developed since 1500 or so.

Everything else is just so much hot air.

In one word; WHY????

I hate to burst anyone's bubble - but 'everything goes if you can pull it off' has been THE guiding principle of International Law ever since Hugo Grotius.

Might makes Right is the legal basis for most international laws we have developed since 1500 or so.

Everything else is just so much hot air.

I understand that might makes right does inherently work. I just like to think that all this noise we make about human rights and international law is more than just hot air. Do I honestly think the world works like that? No, I don't, but one can dream.

I thought we were a bit more civilized than "might makes right".

Also, I'm not just talking about the US (this isn't so much directed at you Corneliu, you've only addressed the US) I'm talking about around the world. If secession is treason, than the US, Ireland, Norway, Panama, and a number of other countries around the world are illegitimate. Unless the ability to win independence by force is the only measure of legitimacy. But again, I thought we were better than that.

You are right.

"its only in the 3rd person, their rebellion, that it is illegal" What the US did was treason. If it had failed, the leaders would've been hanged. for Treason.

I believe the same line holds true for all the other rebellions that have both succeeded and failed.

In one word; WHY????

I hate to burst anyone's bubble - but 'everything goes if you can pull it off' has been THE guiding principle of International Law ever since Hugo Grotius.

Might makes Right is the legal basis for most international laws we have developed since 1500 or so.

Everything else is just so much hot air.

I never thougt I say this to you BogMarsh but in this case, you are right.

In the United States, we already had settled if the Individual states have the right to secede from the Union and fought a war for four years and the states that seceded lost. because they lost, we settled the issue of the righ to secession and no US State has the right to secede.
It saddens me the way people just cannot keep track of their own arguments.

Corneliu -- we were not talking about secession.

We were talking about talking about secession. You said that talk of secession is treason in the US. You are wrong.

Yes, if the State of Vermont declared it was seceding from the Union, it would have no legal right to do that as a result of the "might makes right" result of the Civil War. (Whether that would actually be treason or not, I'm not so sure, but I am certain the federal government would take steps to stop them.)

But if the people of the State of Vermont want to talk in public about how much they'd like to secede, they have the absolute Constitutional right to do that under the First Amendment protections for free speech. And by the way, secession is a perennial favorite topic in Vermont. They didn't join the country until after the Revolution, and today they often complain that it was a mistake. The Constitution guarantees and protects their right to complain all they like.

Actually, in this case, it is treason as this issue was already settled.

Yeah, it is treason untill you pull off the seccesion; this is always the case, many patriots of the American revolution were hung for treason. The point is once you win no one cares that the other side considers it seccesion. Whoopdy fucking doo to treason. In fact nobody even cares at the time, if you are a succesionist why would you ever care when the opposing side slaps you with a legal term?

And what do you mean it was settled? That some court of ex-seccesionalists ruled against it once it was in power?

How long did the British own the colonies before the revolution, were the borders less official?

Who cares about the opinions of dead people, when the living disagree with them? Why should anyone have to legally maintain the status quo they were born into?

I know our borders are legitament as they have stayed the same since we purchased the rest of Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexicans.

That fact that most of the land was taken by conquest does nothing to de-legitimize it in your esteem?


We have treaties that do not have expiration dates :D

After all the US and Canada does have the longest undefended peaceful border in the world.

Durring WWII the Japanese invaded, took, and held US soil in Alaska. So your list falls to "Canada."

That fact that most of the land was taken by conquest does nothing to de-legitimize it in your esteem?

No it doesn't actually. Look at the former British Empire!

Durring WWII the Japanese invaded, took, and held US soil in Alaska. So your list falls to "Canada."

And they abandoned Alaska after awhile because they couldn't hold it. Also, Guam and the Philippines were also invaded and taken over by the Japanese. They were eventually retaken by American Forces.

No it doesn't actually. Look at the former British Empire!

I don't see how looking at the former British empire in any way legitimizes conquests. If that's so, then any state with the military force to do so has the right to succeed.



And they abandoned Alaska after awhile because they couldn't hold it. Also, Guam and the Philippines were also invaded and taken over by the Japanese. They were eventually retaken by American Forces.

Yes, but out boarder's weren't undefended or peaceful. They were breached, if but for a short time.