Silenced on the Day of Silence

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, NewGuy, I know you are a very very very very strict Constitutionalist. However, how is the 14th Amendment unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution??

The original Constitution was a complete document with a complete balance of power as illustrated in its entirety.

As such, they very quickly realized that it was impossible for common (often illiterate) folk to know how they had rights when reading it. Also, it became clear there would be a lot of debate about it.

This perspective was referenced in some of the founding documents I will have to try to locate. In any case, it was for this reason a clarity was required. -This clarification is the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was nothing new, but a clarification of the powers of citizens when taking the Constitution as a whole in context and relating it to the common person. It grants them power. They are the final check and balance.

Since this clarity was required, and offered nothing new, but merely a spotlight on relevant parts, the clarity was listed as ammendments for the purpose of noting there was no CHANGE, (as dictated by the 9th, and the Constitution its self.) but simply a clarification.

When an ammendment is added, therefore, it is for CLARITY of understanding. -NOT for CHANGING. -NOT for INTERPRETING.

As such, if an ammendment were added saying :
People who wear red shoes may not stand on a street corner and yell "you suck".
Then this is a clear violation of 2 things:
1. freedom of speech, and
2. "All men are created equal" and the "inalienable rights" bit as well.

Therefore, this ammendment would be unconstitutional, and is null and void.

The 14th, if in violation of the original document, by all rights, would be the same fate.

Does that help?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Nice no one is answering you, yes, it would be fine for someone to wear a shirt that said that. However, with no factual proof, religious texts, etc. etc. to back it up, that student would be very foolish.

Please. I've gone over this before. Some believe the Bible to be fiction. There are different interpretations of the Bible. Geee. I have my "Bible". It says that left-handed people are sinners. Also. If we are going to declare the Bible to be truth, why not declare all of the Bible to be truth...or are we allowed to remove the Old Testament. I wonder if the student wore clothing made from 2 different materials. If so, he sinned. I wonder if he ate rare bloodied meat. That is a no-no. Look. When you get right down to it, it is one kids opinion based on his interpretation of an old book that he thinks, perhaps in only self-serving and preferred chapters, to be the truth.

At least you gave me a straight answer. Is there any statement that you think that the student shouldn't be allowed to wear?

 

[5stringJeff]

I understand your reasoning, but I think your logic is faulty. Yes, the original Bill of Rights was not necessarily to change the Constitution, but to clarify the rights of US citizens. BUt subsequent amendment have changed the original text. For instance, Senators used to be elected by state legislatures, now they are elected directly. The election of the President and Vice President has also changed substantially - not a clarification of the original text, but a total change of the original. These amendments, also being a part of the Constitution, are part of that same supreme law of the land, just as is the 14th amendment.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Please. I've gone over this before. Some believe the Bible to be fiction. There are different interpretations of the Bible. Geee. I have my "Bible". It says that left-handed people are sinners. Also. If we are going to declare the Bible to be truth, why not declare all of the Bible to be truth...or are we allowed to remove the Old Testament. I wonder if the student wore clothing made from 2 different materials. If so, he sinned. I wonder if he ate rare bloodied meat. That is a no-no. Look. When you get right down to it, it is one kids opinion based on his interpretation of an old book that he thinks, perhaps in only self-serving and preferred chapters, to be the truth.

At least you gave me a straight answer. Is there any statement that you think that the student shouldn't be allowed to wear?

Well, pardon me for interputting your anti-Bible rant, but unless a shirt is overtly vulgar/obscene (violating public decency laws), or the shirt is so revealing that it shows off a girl's breasts (violating public decency laws) then it would be fine.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
BUt subsequent amendment have changed the original text. For instance, Senators used to be elected by state legislatures, now they are elected directly.

-So...stop right there.

Is that legal? Constitutional? Right?

The election of the President and Vice President has also changed substantially - not a clarification of the original text, but a total change of the original.

Again, is this Constitutional, legal or right? -It DOES fly in the face of the original.

These amendments, also being a part of the Constitution, are part of that same supreme law of the land, just as is the 14th amendment.

The ONLY reasons this can happen are 2 fold:

1. Nobody understands their obligation to ignore the law, pull it back out, and impeach the lawmakers.

2. Once an ammendment is made and it is Constitutional, it CANNOT be revoked under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

Put these two together, and you have license to overthrow the power structure.

What has happened in the last 250 years?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
-So...stop right there.

Is that legal? Constitutional? Right?

Again, is this Constitutional, legal or right? -It DOES fly in the face of the original.

Yes, these changes are legal and Constitutional, becasue they were made through the process specified in the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not say that it is not amendable. It gives us a process by which to change it.

2. Once an ammendment is made and it is Constitutional, it CANNOT be revoked under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

I disagree - see above.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Yes, these changes are legal and Constitutional, becasue they were made through the process specified in the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not say that it is not amendable. It gives us a process by which to change it.



I disagree - see above.

We then have a problem here.

The first thing is that the ammendments went through the process to become legal. That is not in question. The process worked.

How about the being in conjunction with the Constitution? If the ammendments and original statements show that the Constitution is the highest authority, nothing can go against it.

NOTHING.

-EVEN ITS OWN WORDING. Think Biblical. If any book is contrary to another, the Bible cannot be a cohesive whole, nor be what it claims to be. By comparison, the Constitution cannot remain intact if any part conflicts with another. If an ammendment goes against it, when the 9th ammendment and Article 6 paragraph 2 lock in the solidarity of such, any statement now entering the Constitution CANNOT contradict original wording.

It is as simple as that. Article 6 paragraph 2 lists that nothing can stand up to the original "any Thing in the Constitution, or any Laws of the State to the Contrary notwithstanding" which proclaims the original as unchangeable and non-contradictory. The Bill of rights adds the clarification that nothing shall change the Constitution to mean anything contrary to what is stated.

I really don't see how you can arrive at your conclusion. Have you looked at these two parts?

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
LOL. If you ever read my post, you will notice that I never equated the statement "Homosexuality is sin" with hatred of homosexuals. You statement that "homosexuality is sin" is merely your interpretation of a book that you may believe to be true. Let us assume that I have a book that says that "being left handed is a sin" and that, by implication, left-handed people who don't change their ways will go to hell...assuming such a place exists. That does not mean that I hate left-handed people.

Nice try. Now. How about a straight answer to this question: Would it have been okay for the student to wear a shirt that said that being left handed is a sin.

You should read your own posts. You were asking if it was ok to wear a shirt that said "Left-handed people should burn in Hell," which is quite hateful and demeaning, as is "Teachers are evil." Now, back to the facts. Fact: No, not everybody believe the Bible to be true, but then again, not everybody believes homosexuality to be biological, so your comparison to being left-handed is a bit invalid.

Now, let's go back to the shirt:

"Homosexuality is sin." Lying is a sin, too, but wearing a shirt that says so isn't hateful towards pathological liars. It merely states that their behavior is wrong and should be corrected.

"Hell is real." A simple belief. In this context, it warns of the consequences of sin. This is not hateful. It is much akin to, "If you keep taking drugs, you'll wind up poor and possibly in jail."

"Jesus is the answer!" A very loving belief. It points out what action should be taken to correct the above immoral behavior. No hate here. It is much akin to "Check into rehab."

"Shout for joy!" If you think this is hateful, you really have gone off the deep end.

There is nothing hateful or descriminatory in this entire statement, so there's no reason it should be restricted speech. Another thing seperating your "left handed" analogy from the homosexual case is that you assume that homosexuality is hereditary or at least, in some way, an involuntary trait that someone is born with. The truth is that science has not proven that, and many, many people still believe homosexuality to be a choice. Even if someone has a predisposition to homosexuality, it is still behavior. Some people have a predispsition to steal, curse, fight, or lie. That doesn't excuse them from it, it just means they have to work a bit harder on that portion of their life. That being the case, saying "Homosexuality is a sin," is more akin to "Meat is murder," or "It's not tissue, it's a child." Now, if you cannot extrapolate from my statements where I think the line is, I refuse to talk to you any more.

Now, enough talk about "your Bible" that says left handed people are sinners. "Your Bible" hasn't survived thousands of years and hasn't been believed and supported by billions of people. There's also more to disagree with about homosexuality than just scripture, although I shouldn't have to provide you with another reason, since the Bible provides most of my very core beliefs. First off, it's a perversion of one of the most sacred emotional and physical acts that occurs between a man and a woman. Second, I simply don't like the gay activist community as a whole, since most of the time I see them, they're accusing Christians of being homophobes simply because they won't condone them in their sin or they're defending a couple of people who were having sex in the middle of a public park, claiming the whole case targetted them because they were gay. They're as bad as the NAACP, but that's just what I've seen. Now shut up about your "right handed" Bible.

One more thing: Quoting obsolete Old Testament law is one of the most immature things I ever see liberals do when they want to condone something specifically prohibited by the Bible. Jesus did not abolish Old Testament law, he completed it, covering up many of the daily ordeals required by Jewish law (such as kosher rules and the incredibly strict sabbath restrictions). Still not good enough for you? Check I Corinthians. Paul specifically mentions in his letter that homosexuals, along with idolaters, fornicators, liars, etc. will go to Hell. It's in the New Testament.

Now, throw away your childish comparisons and petty nitpicking of the Bible and give me one good reason why his shirt should have been banned. Continue with the invalid comparisons, Bible verses out of context, labelling, blanket judgements, or rhetoric spewing, and I will simply ignore you.

Oh, and that LOL at the beginning was such a nice touch. An LOL at the beginning of a post in such a passionate debate usually means that a) I stuck a nerve or b) the person's just trying to piss me off. Either way, it's a bit immature. If it's a, then strike back...with facts, not rhetoric. If it's b, it won't work, so stop trying.

 

[acludem]

I will paint a kid who wears a shirt stating that homosexuals will burn in hell as a homophobe. I stand by that assessment 100%

You can think homosexuality is wrong. I can disagree with you. Thinking homosexuality is wrong doesn't make you a homophobe. Deciding to attack and deride homosexuals and those who support them, as this kid did, does make you a homophobe.

As for the Constitution, it was written vaguely, because those who wrote it wanted it to be flexible enough to change with the times, yet rigid enough to protect those freedoms we all hold most dear. They tried to strike a balance. Strict constructionists fail to understand this, as do those who think the Constitution should be amended for every purpose under the sun.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
I will paint a kid who wears a shirt stating that homosexuals will burn in hell as a homophobe. I stand by that assessment 100%

You can think homosexuality is wrong. I can disagree with you. Thinking homosexuality is wrong doesn't make you a homophobe. Deciding to attack and deride homosexuals and those who support them, as this kid did, does make you a homophobe.

As for the Constitution, it was written vaguely, because those who wrote it wanted it to be flexible enough to change with the times, yet rigid enough to protect those freedoms we all hold most dear. They tried to strike a balance. Strict constructionists fail to understand this, as do those who think the Constitution should be amended for every purpose under the sun.

acludem

This is the last time I'm going to say this, and this goes for you, too, Matt. This kid did NOT, I repeat, did NOT come out and say, "Homosexuals will burn in Hell." That would be quite offensive and hateful. What he said is that homosexuality is a sin, and that sinners that don't repent will go to Hell, but that Jesus can save them. What you're doing is picking and choosing which statements you'd like to combine in order to spin the facts to make your point of view fit. Now, if all the shirt said was, "Homosexuality is a sin," and "Hell is real," then yes, I could see how you would think he was being hateful and attacking and deriding homosexuals, but if you take, now listen closely, all of his statements as a whole, as they were intended to be taken, it comes out meaning something more along the lines of, "Homosexuality is a wrong, and I think homosexuals should repent and accept Jesus or they will go to Hell." This is not hateful, and is akin to opposing abortion or eating meat on the basis that it's a sin and that those who practice it need to repent. If I were him, I'd have left out the Hell part, since that tends to provoke irrational reactions in liberals and other secularists, but he didn't say anything hateful.

Now, let's look at another aspect of this, and that is the picking and choosing what somebody said that you wish to pay attention to. This kid intended his entire shirt to be taken as a whole, yet you take a couple of pieces of it and combine them to say that it's hateful, completely excluding the rest of the statement. Now, let's see what I can do by employing this same tactic.

posted by acludem:

You can think homosexuality is wrong...burn in hell as a homophobe.

Even though you didn't actually say it, I can twist your words to make it look like you said anybody who thinks homosexuality is wrong will burn in hell as a homophobe. That's because I don't show all of your words.

This is the last I will say on this subject. Keep battering yourself against the brick wall that is NewGuy's opinion that the Constitution can only possibly have one logical interpretation that should be readily apparent to anybody who isn't retarded, but if you keep twisting words and make blanket judgements, I will not talk to you.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Keep battering yourself against the brick wall that is NewGuy's opinion that the Constitution can only possibly have one logical interpretation that should be readily apparent to anybody who isn't retarded, but if you keep twisting words and make blanket judgements, I will not talk to you.

Well said. I think I will agree. Logic can only go so far. I have no desire to make a socialist try to understand logic when they value feelings above all else and let their mind go to Hawaii in logical discussion. Instead of wasting my breath with people bent on destroying America, I will illustrate for people who CARE about our nation.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
We then have a problem here.

The first thing is that the ammendments went through the process to become legal. That is not in question. The process worked.

How about the being in conjunction with the Constitution? If the ammendments and original statements show that the Constitution is the highest authority, nothing can go against it.

NOTHING.

-EVEN ITS OWN WORDING. Think Biblical. If any book is contrary to another, the Bible cannot be a cohesive whole, nor be what it claims to be. By comparison, the Constitution cannot remain intact if any part conflicts with another. If an ammendment goes against it, when the 9th ammendment and Article 6 paragraph 2 lock in the solidarity of such, any statement now entering the Constitution CANNOT contradict original wording.

It is as simple as that. Article 6 paragraph 2 lists that nothing can stand up to the original "any Thing in the Constitution, or any Laws of the State to the Contrary notwithstanding" which proclaims the original as unchangeable and non-contradictory. The Bill of rights adds the clarification that nothing shall change the Constitution to mean anything contrary to what is stated.

I really don't see how you can arrive at your conclusion. Have you looked at these two parts?

NewGuy,

Again, I understand your logic, but I think your reasoning is faulty. The Bible is the infallible word of God. God cannot change His mind; thus, the Bible is a non-conflicting, continuous work. The U.S. Constitution, noble as it is, was written by imperfect human beings who understood that there might be changes required from time to time. It was not perfect as written, and never claimed to be such. It is changeable - not by judicial fiat, as has been the case in the last few decades, but by the amendment process - which, interestingly enough, is part of the original text. Thus, any amendments made to the Constitution are just as legally binding as the original articles.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
NewGuy,

Again, I understand your logic, but I think your reasoning is faulty. The Bible is the infallible word of God. God cannot change His mind; thus, the Bible is a non-conflicting, continuous work. The U.S. Constitution, noble as it is, was written by imperfect human beings who understood that there might be changes required from time to time. It was not perfect as written, and never claimed to be such. It is changeable - not by judicial fiat, as has been the case in the last few decades, but by the amendment process - which, interestingly enough, is part of the original text. Thus, any amendments made to the Constitution are just as legally binding as the original articles.

I guess then, we agree to disagree. I will review our other founding documents as well to see If any further light can be shed on our perspectives just for my own piece of mind.

 

[5stringJeff]

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Hobbit
You should read your own posts. You were asking if it was ok to wear a shirt that said "Left-handed people should burn in Hell," which is quite hateful and demeaning, as is "Teachers are evil." Now, back to the facts. Fact: No, not everybody believe the Bible to be true, but then again, not everybody believes homosexuality to be biological, so your comparison to being left-handed is a bit invalid.

Now, let's go back to the shirt:

"Homosexuality is sin." Lying is a sin, too, but wearing a shirt that says so isn't hateful towards pathological liars. It merely states that their behavior is wrong and should be corrected.

"Hell is real." A simple belief. In this context, it warns of the consequences of sin. This is not hateful. It is much akin to, "If you keep taking drugs, you'll wind up poor and possibly in jail."

"Jesus is the answer!" A very loving belief. It points out what action should be taken to correct the above immoral behavior. No hate here. It is much akin to "Check into rehab."

"Shout for joy!" If you think this is hateful, you really have gone off the deep end.

There is nothing hateful or descriminatory in this entire statement, so there's no reason it should be restricted speech. Another thing seperating your "left handed" analogy from the homosexual case is that you assume that homosexuality is hereditary or at least, in some way, an involuntary trait that someone is born with. The truth is that science has not proven that, and many, many people still believe homosexuality to be a choice. Even if someone has a predisposition to homosexuality, it is still behavior. Some people have a predispsition to steal, curse, fight, or lie. That doesn't excuse them from it, it just means they have to work a bit harder on that portion of their life. That being the case, saying "Homosexuality is a sin," is more akin to "Meat is murder," or "It's not tissue, it's a child." Now, if you cannot extrapolate from my statements where I think the line is, I refuse to talk to you any more.

Now, enough talk about "your Bible" that says left handed people are sinners. "Your Bible" hasn't survived thousands of years and hasn't been believed and supported by billions of people. There's also more to disagree with about homosexuality than just scripture, although I shouldn't have to provide you with another reason, since the Bible provides most of my very core beliefs. First off, it's a perversion of one of the most sacred emotional and physical acts that occurs between a man and a woman. Second, I simply don't like the gay activist community as a whole, since most of the time I see them, they're accusing Christians of being homophobes simply because they won't condone them in their sin or they're defending a couple of people who were having sex in the middle of a public park, claiming the whole case targetted them because they were gay. They're as bad as the NAACP, but that's just what I've seen. Now shut up about your "right handed" Bible.

One more thing: Quoting obsolete Old Testament law is one of the most immature things I ever see liberals do when they want to condone something specifically prohibited by the Bible. Jesus did not abolish Old Testament law, he completed it, covering up many of the daily ordeals required by Jewish law (such as kosher rules and the incredibly strict sabbath restrictions). Still not good enough for you? Check I Corinthians. Paul specifically mentions in his letter that homosexuals, along with idolaters, fornicators, liars, etc. will go to Hell. It's in the New Testament.

Now, throw away your childish comparisons and petty nitpicking of the Bible and give me one good reason why his shirt should have been banned. Continue with the invalid comparisons, Bible verses out of context, labelling, blanket judgements, or rhetoric spewing, and I will simply ignore you.

Oh, and that LOL at the beginning was such a nice touch. An LOL at the beginning of a post in such a passionate debate usually means that a) I stuck a nerve or b) the person's just trying to piss me off. Either way, it's a bit immature. If it's a, then strike back...with facts, not rhetoric. If it's b, it won't work, so stop trying.

Try to be a bit more technical and logical. Look at my post very carefully. I did not equate "Homosexuality is sin" with hatred of homosexuals. My example of "Left-handed people should burn in Hell" may have been hateful and demeaning. I perhaps committed a leap in logic and implied that sinners go to hell. Perhaps homosexual students felt the same way about the shirt that was worn. Very well then. Yet, how can one not avoid the implication that homosexuals will go to hell if they do not repent and change? But wait, you say "Hell is real". That further implies that homosexuals will go to hell. Hmmmm. Oh, well. I will try to me more parallel. Let us say that one wears a shirt that says that teaching is a sin or that being left handed is a sin. I suppose that those statements are not quite so hateful and demeaning.


The issue of whether, and to what degree, homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. The topic is whether it was okay of the student to wear the shirt that he wore and to what extent "free speech" should be tolerated in school. I used "Left-handedness" as an example. I could have easily used a different example such as "Those who CHOOSE to eat chocolate ice cream sin".

Concerning the Bible, many myths survived for thousands of years. May we remove the Old Testament rules? I think that I can find some new testament rules that even Christians would not like. Read 2nd Thesssalonians 3:10. It sure puts a damper on our welfare system. Cruel husbands better have their wives read 1 Corinthians 7:10. "...A wife must not separate from her husband". Battered wives better be careful because I didn't find any disclaimer. Anyway, what did Jesus say about Homosexuals?

I did not say that the shirt should be banned. I said that I think that it was inappropriate to wear it on such a day. Though it did not say it word-for word. It implied that homosexuals go to hell.