Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 275

Thread: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

  1. #161
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    I'm thinking Ceiling Cat
    May his ever vigilant gaze find you masturbating, Brother. Amen.

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by Strucky View Post
    Do you feel the same about Obama?
    I feel the same about anybody who tries to involve religion in politics.

  3. #163
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    In danger of actually returning to a non-insulting/depreciating portion of the thread, I would like to answer to the "1st Amendment ambiguities" discussion.

    First, let me say that the Amendment is not an iron-clad statement of what is permissable and what is not. The writers used a common speech common sense approach in all of their writings. The Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were all writen in the same manner using pretty much the same language.

    Second, you are right, dictionary meanings did not come into play until the 1800s with Webster and a few other compilers. Until then word meanings and spellings were pretty loosely followed.

    Given that, I still feel that they are not as ambigious as you claim. Using common sense can determine much of what it covers. Citing laws and judicial findings that have come after the fact and elaborations beyond those really do not change the fact that the basis is there and not that ambigious. I feel that many of the laws and several of the rulings (mostly based on the laws) actually violate the Bill of Rights and should be revoked.

    As to specifics - the canabilistic religionist is not a violator of the Bill of Rights unless he/she is producing the dead bodies to consume. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to say on the legal form of Marriage - whether to multiples or whatevers. These are all laws at the State level since the States license marriage, not the Federal Government.

    Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.

    I believe those were the specifics that people threw up as objections although a few may have escaped into the trash discusions.

    I would like to add that, in my opinion, iron-clad laws do not do well in the long haul. The Bill of Rights is over 200 years old now. If it had limited free speech to the ability to talk in public assembly then any talk using electronic media would be able to be limited. Any further technological advance in communications would also be able to be limited. But the Amendment says "Free Speech'. Speech in this case is communicating an idea or ideas through written, spoken, transmitted, or any other form of communications. By not being iron-clad it can adjust to changing technology, society, and culture.

  4. #164
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    In danger of actually returning to a non-insulting/depreciating portion of the thread
    Careful, you might produce some substance!

    Second, you are right, dictionary meanings did not come into play until the 1800s with Webster and a few other compilers. Until then word meanings and spellings were pretty loosely followed.
    I don't know about that. Dictionaries had been around before that, and remember, this is about legal definitions, which were discussed extensively in law books. I don't think it's the lack of dictionaries that mattered, but rather the lack of court cases and precedents to discuss these issues and hash them out.

    Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
    Well stated.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
    While I would disagree that religious displays on government property are promotion of a particular religion, I do agree that fundamentally this needs to be handled on the community level. This isn't something for the federal government to get involved in. If a community wants a manger scene on the lawn of the city court; more power to them. I don't view this as promotion of religion less there were actual law compelling one to practice a particular religion. In the end, I think the people of a community can make rules for themselves about the use of their public land. They ultimately pay for it, so they can do what they want for the most part with it.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    GOD FORBID...er...rather...CONSTITUTION FORBID a Post Office put up a Nativity scene on its front lawn during Christmas...I mean...the HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!! and NO FEDERAL BUILDING should have a statue of the Ten Commandments because it oppresses all the non-christian religions!

    Congress shall make no law. Nothing in there about cosmetic stuff of no consequence to laws.

  7. #167
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    GOD FORBID...er...rather...CONSTITUTION FORBID a Post Office put up a Nativity scene on its front lawn during Christmas...I mean...the HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!! and NO FEDERAL BUILDING should have a statue of the Ten Commandments because it oppresses all the non-christian religions!

    Congress shall make no law. Nothing in there about cosmetic stuff of no consequence to laws.
    i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
    Well that's fine. As long as we can act as respectable adults and not go crazy, there shouldn't be a problem.

    EDIT: oh wait, we apparently can't.

  9. #169
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    Religious displays on government property CAN be seen as promotion of a religion and thus be against the Constitution. Usage of Federal Government property for it could be bad, state or local property would depend on the local laws, although the Constitution could be seen as prohibiting those too, depending on the rational behind all of the portions. A possible way around it is if the property is set aside for community usage with any and all people able to use it for displays. Once again, this would be local laws more than federal.
    Christmas cannot because its a federal holiday so until that is lifted, Christmas displays are legal despite what some local groups claim.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  10. #170
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Sarah Palin says US should rededicate itself to God

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i agree, however, allowing nativity scenes would rightly lead to allowing all manner of symbolism.
    Nope sorry. Christmas is a federal holiday therefore it would not be illegal to display the nativity scene.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

Page 17 of 28 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •