School drops the Pledge of Allegiance

[Shogun]

LOL. I agree. But it's true that many places being closed on Sunday's derive from the tradition of not working on Sunday.

It seems that everyone else is willing to tolerate agnostics and atheists and in some places completely throw out their tradition and history to accomodate and disenfranchise the majority. But they still aren't satisfied or willing to tolerate Christians or other religions.

yea, dude.. we see all kinds of tolorance for atheists ALL THE TIME!

HAHAHAHAHA!


I mean.. just LOOK at how many non-christian presidents we've had! WE ARE SO FUCKING LUCKY, lemme tellya. OH yes. America is just FULL of historic examples of tolorant goodness towards non-believers by christians! It's just like a fucking willy wonka chocolate factory of benevolence!




Your stupid fucking rationalization of what amounts to a STATE RELIGION is exactly why the first amendment says what it does about respecting such. If ignoring that FACT sits well with you then so be it. I mean, Id HATE to be pummeled about the fucking head and neck with ALL THOSE examples you can provide of tolorant good will at non-believers from christians!

 

[jillian]

Shog, and yet you are okay with voting on gay marriage.



I wish you'd make an effort to be consistent.

he is. if he likes it, it's an inalienable right. if not, then the constitution doesn't apply.

real simple.. the world according to shogie. ;o)

 

[Shogun]

Shog, and yet you are okay with voting on gay marriage.



I wish you'd make an effort to be consistent.

can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?


Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...

 

[Ravi]

can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?


Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...

The only thing, really, that keeps gays from being married IS religion, doofus.

 

[Shogun]

Is it just me, or are Soggy's diatribes a thousand times more enjoyable when he's actually right?

hehehe..

 

[Shogun]

he is. if he likes it, it's an inalienable right. if not, then the constitution doesn't apply.

real simple.. the world according to shogie. ;o)

well, lawyer, you might wanna take another gander since an amendment covers THIS issue wheras you require a court decision to validate gay marriage..

Im assuming you are not beyond the bar long enough to figure out the difference.

 

[manifold]

can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?


Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...

I happen to agree with you on this thread Soggy, but...


For consistency sake, if you're going to invoke the 9th Amendment in discussions pertaining to smoking for example, why wouldn't you invoke it to defend gay marriage?

 

[Shogun]

The only thing, really, that keeps gays from being married IS religion, doofus.

well.. that... AND state legislation.

now.. did you want to remind me where gay marriage was as specified as the issue of a state religion?

 

[Ravi]

well.. that... AND state legislation.

now.. did you want to remind me where gay marriage was as specified as the issue of a state religion?

It is, Shog, and you know it. Same with biracial marriage in the past, it's based on someone's moral outrage.

Show me in the constitution what makes it so that two people are not allowed to enter into a contractual agreement.

 

[Shogun]

I happen to agree with you on this thread Soggy, but...


For consistency sake, if you're going to invoke the 9th Amendment in discussions pertaining to smoking for example, why wouldn't you invoke it to defend gay marriage?

goddammit, Mani. Ok, I'll concede that the ninth could probably be used to validate civil unions (since marriages are, by and large, religious cerimonies) on par with marriage in the eyes of the state. I would argue that it's property rights, and not smokers rights, that should maintain the rights of bar owners to cater to smokers.

HOWEVER, back to the dogma junkies and their enablers...


Amendment I

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.


to argue that removing the word "god" from the pledge is prohibiting the free excercise of religion is BEYOND fucking retarded. Sinc the Pledge IS an establishment WITH protocol at the FEDERAL LEVEL it is a violation of the first amendment to keep "under god" in our national pledge. Hell, LOOK AT THE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE ADDITION.


or, just fucking deal with it like we expect non-believers to do.

 

[Ravi]

Mani, you finally convinced him.

 

[Shogun]

It is, Shog, and you know it. Same with biracial marriage in the past, it's based on someone's moral outrage.

Show me in the constitution what makes it so that two people are not allowed to enter into a contractual agreement.

bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution. THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.


I can show you where authority is passed to the states to do what they will according to the legislation of the people.. You know.. kinda like how no less than 1/3rd of the states passed bans after Mass 04 decided to stir this same pot? I hate to get all Scalia on ya but the first amendment directly addresses the seperation of church and state whereas you are digging for gold and have nothing to show for it.

 

[Shogun]

now now, Ravi.. property rights are mentioned in the constituion already too.


marriage, in any form, isn't. In fact, it's specifially left to the will of the states. have you read the document ever?

 

[Ravi]

bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution. THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.


I can show you where authority is passed to the states to do what they will according to the legislation of the people.. You know.. kinda like how no less than 1/3rd of the states passed bans after Mass 04 decided to stir this same pot? I hate to get all Scalia on ya but the first amendment directly addresses the seperation of church and state whereas you are digging for gold and have nothing to show for it.

Um, biracial marriage isn't addressed in the constitution either. Churches probably should be allowed to refuse to marry biracial couples and gay couples and anyone they please.

BUT, there is no constitutional basis for denying any two consenting adults from having a civil union, no matter how you wish it so.

But, I don't want to derail your thread.

 

[jillian]

bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution. THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.

Too bad you have no understanding of constutional law. Pity that... the constitution isn't a bible to be read literally by a bunch of nimrods. Caselaw is an integral part of the Constitution since it ... INTERPRETS the Constitution and says WHAT IT APPLIES TO.

Or should the founders have made the constitution thousands of pages long so it included every possible fact pattern that occurred over the entire course of our history?

 

[Shogun]

Too bad you have no understanding of constutional law. Pity that... the constitution isn't a bible to be read literally by a bunch of nimrods. Caselaw is an integral part of the Constitution since it ... INTERPRETS the Constitution and says WHAT IT APPLIES TO.

Or should the founders have made the constitution thousands of pages long so it included every possible fact pattern that occurred over the entire course of our history?

thankfully, YOU are not the last opinion when it comes to HOW the constitution is read, eh jill? I mean, it's not like half the fucking supreme court AGREES with my position or anything.

 

[jillian]

thankfully, YOU are not the last opinion when it comes to HOW the constitution is read, eh jill? I mean, it's not like half the fucking supreme court AGREES with my position or anything.

half the court agrees with you when it SUITS THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSE and only because other idiots appointed them...

 

[Shogun]

Um, biracial marriage isn't addressed in the constitution either. Churches probably should be allowed to refuse to marry biracial couples and gay couples and anyone they please.

BUT, there is no constitutional basis for denying any two consenting adults from having a civil union, no matter how you wish it so.

But, I don't want to derail your thread.

sure there is. Marriage is not a right anymore than communion is. The Constitution passes this type of issue to the states to decide how THEY want to handle such. This is why we have dry counties despite the assumption that drinking beer is a constitutional right. States have voted and do not agree with you.

You do understand that I am FOR gay marriage, right? I'm just not interested in shitting on the constitution to achieve such. This isn't a matter of what I want. This is a matter of what the STATES want. And, according to the founding fathers, legislation was meant to reflect more than a majority of judges trying to go with the flow. The PEOPLE have spoken regarding civil unions and gay marriage. Like I said, I hate to get all Scalia on ya.

 

[Shogun]

half the court agrees with you when it SUITS THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSE and only because other idiots appointed them...

oh well THATS a solid fucking arguement.





indeed, thankfully YOU have a monopoly on the OPINION of someone's stupidity or political purpose. Hell, pot meet kettle.

 

[jillian]

Except that... marriage IS a right.

You don't get to choose the laws you agree with......