States Rights / States Wronged.

[AVG-JOE]

If we let one religion we have to let em all.

The point is not equal equality for every religion, the assumption I made in the OP was that 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina wanted a nativity scene.

If 75% of The People of The Great City of San Francisco, CA want to erect (pun very much intended) a bunch of 'David' statues, sans the fig leaf, or 75% of The People of The Great State of Oregon want a Buddha or 75% of The People of The Great City of Brooklyn want a Menorah, who are the rest of us to tell them that they can't?

What if every issue that couldn't be agreed on by at least 75% of Americans got kicked down to the State level and if 75% of The People of Any Given State can't agree on something we make it a county by county decision.

If 75% of the people of any given American county can't agree on a behavior or policy, We, The People should be given our personal freedom in the matter.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

If 1% Muslims want to set up place for worshiping on the front lawn of North Carolina's capitol building, do we have the right to tell them no? After all it is freedom of Religion, not from religion. Lets just allow any deity do whatever the fuck they want on public property.

The tail should NOT wag the dog! If 75% of The People of Any Community want to set up an idol or alter to worship at, why should it bug the rest of us? Sure the 25% minority need to have their basic civil rights protected, but if 75% of The People of a community the size of a county or state are in agreement, how bad can it be?

 

[uptownlivin90]

If we let one religion we have to let em all.

Silly person that is not how it works in the US, it has to be Christian as the US is a Christian nation. Any others need to be quiet before the rest of the nation starts to hunt them down and convert them by any means possible.

Let me just nip this one in the bud.. before I go out tonight. This nation NEVER has been, is not now, and NEVER will be a "christian nation". Can't be any more simple then that.

 

[FireGod]

If we let one religion we have to let em all.

Silly person that is not how it works in the US, it has to be Christian as the US is a Christian nation. Any others need to be quiet before the rest of the nation starts to hunt them down and convert them by any means possible.

Let me just nip this one in the bud.. before I go out tonight. This nation NEVER has been, is not now, and NEVER will be a "christian nation". Can't be any more simple then that.

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Silly person that is not how it works in the US, it has to be Christian as the US is a Christian nation. Any others need to be quiet before the rest of the nation starts to hunt them down and convert them by any means possible.

Let me just nip this one in the bud.. before I go out tonight. This nation NEVER has been, is not now, and NEVER will be a "christian nation". Can't be any more simple then that.

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

 

[FireGod]

Let me just nip this one in the bud.. before I go out tonight. This nation NEVER has been, is not now, and NEVER will be a "christian nation". Can't be any more simple then that.

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

For the record personally agree with your POV.

Now you have seen the hogwash that has pervaded the country of late and earlier, the fact is that the Christian card gets pulled too often at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Bush gave them traction in his speeches and it has always been an undercurrent in policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some are mistaking a majority as the governing rule of our country. Go back and read the entire Constitution plus ALL the amendments, and those folks will realize that 75% of anything means squat if it violates our charter document.

 

[uptownlivin90]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

If 1% Muslims want to set up place for worshiping on the front lawn of North Carolina's capitol building, do we have the right to tell them no? After all it is freedom of Religion, not from religion. Lets just allow any deity do whatever the fuck they want on public property.

The tail should NOT wag the dog! If 75% of The People of Any Community want to set up an idol or alter to worship at, why should it bug the rest of us? Sure the 25% minority need to have their basic civil rights protected, but if 75% of The People of a community the size of a county or state are in agreement, how bad can it be?

Here's the issue I have and it's not neccesarily with states rights it's with basic civil liberties. We have a federal court system in this nation for a reason: to protect the basic rights and freedoms of the individual person that we as a whole in this nation find to be universal. These are the rights to free speech, bare arms, freedom of religion, life, liberty, etc etc. I'm not going to pretend that it's the federal government in and of itself that having total and complete power over the rights of an individual within it's hands would abuse such power. simply because history has shown this NOT to be the case.

The "literacy tests" created by southern states that kept blacks from voting in most districts is a prime example. The federal government was instrumental in striking such laws down and restoring voting rights to people of color. Now I'm not saying that the feds have a clean record either, quite the contrary. Plus, I'm all for states rights when it comes to the question of economic policy, in matter of fact I perfer it. If 56% of Missourians want, say a massive museum dedicated to swiss cheese... Hell if I'm willing to pay for it here in Maryland.

However, the federal government itself has a guiding constitution, which I think is a pretty good one, which protects civil liberties and freedoms and protects ALL of our citizens from having their personal rights taken from them. I think the biggest function of the supreme court should simply be insuring that all the states comply with the standards set by the constitution. I'm a huge fan of Roe v. Wade, think it's a woman's right to decide what goes on with her body, and that no government fed or state should have the "right" to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term. That goes for women in New York and Alabama.

I honestly don't think any state should have the ability to restrict personal rights when it comes to prostitution, gambling, and prohibition either, but that's just me in my perfect little world. Unfortunetly in these areas it looks like the Federal government is on the worst end of those arguments, being that they've been forcing the states from restricting the rights of their citizens. The best way to handle this I think is to drastically cut back the federal government to three main functions: foreign policy, interstate highways (when absolutely neccesary), and civil liberties. For this we can almost completely eliminate federal income taxes maybe a flat tax of 10% would be neccesary, and I think government would function much more smoothly. I think the feds can handle only thinking about three things... maybe.

To address your point though about the setting up an idol, I'll suggest this to the 75% of the citizens of that state: get together yourselves and purchase the land from the state, and build the idol. Income tax dollars shouldn't be spent on such things, I'm not letting you pull money from my paycheck every year to build an idol I don't even believe in if I'm that other 25%. That's originally why the balance between the feds and the states had separate powers and the supreme court was supposed to be governed strictly by the constitution, so that that 75% couldn't force the 25% into paying for something like that.

I mean if your serious about using state dollars though to build your little "idol", I mean there's other ways besides income taxes to do it that are constitutional, fair, and the other 25% don't have to pay if they don't want to. Other state revenue could pay for it, toll bridges, tickets, fines, etc. Of coruse to me I'd still vote it down because it seems like a waist of state money, and I don't like waisting state money. Imagine if VA had just put up that money for a huge idol in Richmond, right before the snowmaggedon blizzards hit this year. Their state would be dead broke and there'd be alot of pissed off virginians, especially in northern virginia.

Yeah... it's better to just leave things like that to the private sector. The state should be more focused on schools and roads and such.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

For the record personally agree with your POV.

Now you have seen the hogwash that has pervaded the country of late and earlier, the fact is that the Christian card gets pulled too often at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Bush gave them traction in his speeches and it has always been an undercurrent in policy.

Exactly, it's an undercurrent that shouldn't be there, and we need people who understand that to be voted into office. I'm personally a non-practicing seventh-day adventist.... I'm not in with mainstream christianity for the most part even though I consider myself to be deeply religious and devouted to my beliefs and my God. There's some things I believe though and some values that I have that conflict with "mainstream" christian values and right-wing christian values. I get kind of pissed when I hear people try to fofrce their "Values" on to others using the government. It seems kind of lazy at the least to me. Using the government to force your lifestyle on people rather then spending the time to try to convince them that it's actually the "right way".

I think christian fascism is America's greatest inside enemy right now, and has been for a while. Thank God it's not to the extreme that Islamofascism exists in nations like Saudi Arabia, but I have a feeling there are those in this nation who would have it that way. Thank God for the constitution.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I thanked you for that OP however I want to take it a step farther, not only have we seemed to have abandoned the 10th Amendment and ceded a lot of the States powers to the Federal govt. but we have completely ignored the 9th Amendment, government at any level can be a tyrannical power and the 9th states.....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Smoking a joint in the privacy of one's own home or having gay sex between consenting adults should not even be brought to a vote, as Jefferson said ....

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

There ARE lines, however. For me, my neighbor smoking a joint may be cool, but what if 75% of my neighbors want to punish people for giving cocain to children and having sex with them? Can We The People be trusted to employ the concept of 'government'? Should We be trusted?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Many incorrectly assume that The United States of America is a democracy.
We have never been.
We are a constitutional republic.
Fast approaching a theoligical police state.

I hope you're wrong, Bro'..... But it is definitely one of the possibilities facing this world.

Guaranteed though.... if given their freedom to do so, The People of at least one of the Great States in this Union would forge some version of a theological police state, at least for a time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Some are mistaking a majority as the governing rule of our country. Go back and read the entire Constitution plus ALL the amendments, and those folks will realize that 75% of anything means squat if it violates our charter document.

Good point.

The only exception being if 75% of Americans ever find a clause of the document stupid and vote to change it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some are mistaking a majority as the governing rule of our country. Go back and read the entire Constitution plus ALL the amendments, and those folks will realize that 75% of anything means squat if it violates our charter document.

Good point.

The only exception being if 75% of Americans ever find a clause of the document stupid and vote to change it.

The amendatory process is part of the game, for sure.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let me just nip this one in the bud.. before I go out tonight. This nation NEVER has been, is not now, and NEVER will be a "christian nation". Can't be any more simple then that.

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

I guess what I was taught in school about puritans at plymouth rock trying to escape religious persicution because of their <insert non-christian religion in here> was wrong.

 

[ihopehefails]

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

For the record personally agree with your POV.

Now you have seen the hogwash that has pervaded the country of late and earlier, the fact is that the Christian card gets pulled too often at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Bush gave them traction in his speeches and it has always been an undercurrent in policy.

Exactly, it's an undercurrent that shouldn't be there, and we need people who understand that to be voted into office. I'm personally a non-practicing seventh-day adventist.... I'm not in with mainstream christianity for the most part even though I consider myself to be deeply religious and devouted to my beliefs and my God. There's some things I believe though and some values that I have that conflict with "mainstream" christian values and right-wing christian values. I get kind of pissed when I hear people try to fofrce their "Values" on to others using the government. It seems kind of lazy at the least to me. Using the government to force your lifestyle on people rather then spending the time to try to convince them that it's actually the "right way".

I think christian fascism is America's greatest inside enemy right now, and has been for a while. Thank God it's not to the extreme that Islamofascism exists in nations like Saudi Arabia, but I have a feeling there are those in this nation who would have it that way. Thank God for the constitution.

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

 

[ihopehefails]

The entire first amendment was designed to protect the expression of religion and any application of it that restricts the expression of religion is misusing its purpose. That includes the expression of religion in the public sphere and even if you did not believe that then check the first amendment where it says 'free speech'. Surely religious expression is covered there.

 

[California Girl]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

 

[Annie]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

I find it interesting that Joe Steel is arguing against the individual self-determination. I thought liberals were all for people being free to make their own choices? Guess they mean if their choices reflect theirs.

 

[California Girl]

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

I find it interesting that Joe Steel is arguing against the individual self-determination. I thought liberals were all for people being free to make their own choices? Guess they mean if their choices reflect theirs.

No, liberals are told what to think, not how to think for themselves. That's why you see little evidence of individualism in the liberal mind.

 

[Joe Steel]

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

Each member of the community has made its choice and it is irrevocable. The time for dalliances has passed.