An Athiest Student as she has claimed, brings a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU?

[Crackerjack]

Unalienable Rights come from Our Creator. It is for Government, by the Consent of the Governed to Recognize, to Establish, and to Defend them. In Our Republic, it is the Will of the People, the Super Majority that determines in the end, once we get past the games and manipulation.

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

Check your premise.

Do you know the difference between positive law and natural law? If so, please tell me what you think it is.

 

[Crackerjack]

Yes you are right, if one can afford that, but for those who have to go to public schools, why can't there be a consensus among the parents and the staff in that public school, to give the whole student body in a majority, an experience there in which is suitable for that school, the culture existing within the area, and the wants of the citizens, staff and community without government intrusion?

If you can't afford a Christian school, why not teach Christian values at home rather than force them on non-Christians simply because you have them out voted?

Ok, and if there is a consensus among the parents, faculty, and the children to not be abused by one who wants to abuse, and whom can do this for some rediculous confusion that exist within a statute or law, so it then protects her against the majority who see things otherwise, well then what next I ask?

Should she get her way against the majority who are in that school (turning it upside down for all 99% of them there), and for whom do see it otherwise, or should she be asked to leave the school if she is offended by the teachings there, the art, expression of art, beliefs, grading systems, busing systems, faculty make up, activities in which that school supports along with the 99% support of those things mentioned? Come on now, because this is exactly what we are talking about here, and is at stake here with this kind of stuff, so think before you answer. Oh and try to think with an open mind for a change please...

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

 

[beagle9]

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

Check your premise.

Do you know the difference between positive law and natural law? If so, please tell me what you think it is.

I don't so please tell me, I am all ears..

 

[beagle9]

If you can't afford a Christian school, why not teach Christian values at home rather than force them on non-Christians simply because you have them out voted?

Ok, and if there is a consensus among the parents, faculty, and the children to not be abused by one who wants to abuse, and whom can do this for some rediculous confusion that exist within a statute or law, so it then protects her against the majority who see things otherwise, well then what next I ask?

Should she get her way against the majority who are in that school (turning it upside down for all 99% of them there), and for whom do see it otherwise, or should she be asked to leave the school if she is offended by the teachings there, the art, expression of art, beliefs, grading systems, busing systems, faculty make up, activities in which that school supports along with the 99% support of those things mentioned? Come on now, because this is exactly what we are talking about here, and is at stake here with this kind of stuff, so think before you answer. Oh and try to think with an open mind for a change please...

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

 

[Crackerjack]

Check your premise.

Do you know the difference between positive law and natural law? If so, please tell me what you think it is.

I don't so please tell me, I am all ears..

In a nutshell, positive law is man-made law, assuming that all rights are based upon society or some other man-made construct. Natural law says that there is a body of rights that humans have simply by being human, given to us by our Creator.

The two ideas are pretty much mutually exclusive.

 

[Intense]

I believe that is the first time I've seen someone argue for natural law and positive law in the same breath.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Great book. You should read it sometime.

Yep. Sorry there are no pop-ups or pictures for you. Sorry you missed the point, too.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok, and if there is a consensus among the parents, faculty, and the children to not be abused by one who wants to abuse, and whom can do this for some rediculous confusion that exist within a statute or law, so it then protects her against the majority who see things otherwise, well then what next I ask?

Should she get her way against the majority who are in that school (turning it upside down for all 99% of them there), and for whom do see it otherwise, or should she be asked to leave the school if she is offended by the teachings there, the art, expression of art, beliefs, grading systems, busing systems, faculty make up, activities in which that school supports along with the 99% support of those things mentioned? Come on now, because this is exactly what we are talking about here, and is at stake here with this kind of stuff, so think before you answer. Oh and try to think with an open mind for a change please...

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

 

[beagle9]

Your interpretation os the first amendment is just plain scary

You actually favor VOTING on which rights others are allowed to have? Where would civil rights have been if people could vote on which rights blacks should have? The majority of Christians can vote on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built? Non-Christians should be forced to participate in Christian activities because you VOTED on it?

I am so glad that my America is nothing like the America you want us to be

And what kind of America do we have now by your standards ? That is scary also, but we have to deal with it don't we?

I was around in 1963. We have a much more moral America

In 1963

- Americans were spitting on black schoolchildren for trying to go to a public school
- Gays were afraid to admit their homosexuality because they could be beaten and police would do nothing about it
- Women could be beaten by their husbands and it was shrugged off as a domestic issue
- Women were openly harassed in the workplace
- Business could openly dump toxic chemicals in our air and rivers
- Christians would force non-Christian children to participate in christian prayer
- We assassinated our president in front of his wife

What does any of this that you write, have to do with a specific issue that we are dealing with right now today?

I could also site many things today that have been going on currently, that which may even trump some of the things that you have brought forward from that time period, so yes we have been dealing with many issues over time, in which were issues that needed to be fixed or straightened out, and you know what? This is just another one of those issues that need to be straightened out, because it is also abusive to many.

 

[Crackerjack]

Ok, and if there is a consensus among the parents, faculty, and the children to not be abused by one who wants to abuse, and whom can do this for some rediculous confusion that exist within a statute or law, so it then protects her against the majority who see things otherwise, well then what next I ask?

Should she get her way against the majority who are in that school (turning it upside down for all 99% of them there), and for whom do see it otherwise, or should she be asked to leave the school if she is offended by the teachings there, the art, expression of art, beliefs, grading systems, busing systems, faculty make up, activities in which that school supports along with the 99% support of those things mentioned? Come on now, because this is exactly what we are talking about here, and is at stake here with this kind of stuff, so think before you answer. Oh and try to think with an open mind for a change please...

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

This is why I'm trying to get you to read the link I sent you and to understand that our system is one of natural law. Your argument for rights by majority rule may win you the battle, but it will ultimately lose you the war. If you argue from a natural rights perspective, you will find that the rights you hold dear will be there regardless of petty political considerations like majorities and minorities. Think about what this line from the Declaration of Independence means:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights are self-evident -- they don't need to be acknowledged by a majority. The Founders are saying, in the vernacular, "Hey, it's obvious, God gave us these rights that nobody can take away!"

 

[beagle9]

Do you know the difference between positive law and natural law? If so, please tell me what you think it is.

I don't so please tell me, I am all ears..

In a nutshell, positive law is man-made law, assuming that all rights are based upon society or some other man-made construct. Natural law says that there is a body of rights that humans have simply by being human, given to us by our Creator.

The two ideas are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Thanks

 

[beagle9]

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

This is why I'm trying to get you to read the link I sent you and to understand that our system is one of natural law. Your argument for rights by majority rule may win you the battle, but it will ultimately lose you the war. If you argue from a natural rights perspective, you will find that the rights you hold dear will be there regardless of petty political considerations like majorities and minorities. Think about what this line from the Declaration of Independence means:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights are self-evident -- they don't need to be acknowledged by a majority. The Founders are saying, in the vernacular, "Hey, it's obvious, God gave us these rights that nobody can take away!"

Did he give this girl the right to abuse the 99% in that school, when she teamed with the ACLU, and attacked her school?

 

[beagle9]

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

Did society back her up? We would need a poll or a vote to find out that information now wouldn't we?

Oh you don't want that vote, because it might make you look bad if the opposite were to be the case.

 

[Intense]

When will you start to understand that majorities and minorities have nothing to do with any of this?

If the majority of the people voted to make political speech illegal, it would be unconstitutional.

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

From your perspective, I guess that is a good thing. I just don't share it. I do respect it though. Freedom, Individual Liberty, Unalienable Right's are only as strong as We are in Defending them, against Tyranny, in all and Any Form. Things are not always as they appear, RW. Enumerated Power, has clearly been violated, almost from conception. Claims from Government, Society, need to stand on Merit, which is based and justified by circumstance, and how it is dealt with. Power, for Powers own sake, is not Justified. The End does not Justify the Means. The Means needs to be Justified through Cause and Reason. We have a long way to go in understanding Impartial Justice. When we do, sight won't be lost so easily.

 

[Crackerjack]

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

This is why I'm trying to get you to read the link I sent you and to understand that our system is one of natural law. Your argument for rights by majority rule may win you the battle, but it will ultimately lose you the war. If you argue from a natural rights perspective, you will find that the rights you hold dear will be there regardless of petty political considerations like majorities and minorities. Think about what this line from the Declaration of Independence means:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights are self-evident -- they don't need to be acknowledged by a majority. The Founders are saying, in the vernacular, "Hey, it's obvious, God gave us these rights that nobody can take away!"

Did he give this girl the right to abuse the 99% in that school, when she teamed with the ACLU, and attacked her school?

Majorities don't matter when it comes to natural law. We live under a natural law system. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

 

[rightwinger]

And what kind of America do we have now by your standards ? That is scary also, but we have to deal with it don't we?

I was around in 1963. We have a much more moral America

In 1963

- Americans were spitting on black schoolchildren for trying to go to a public school
- Gays were afraid to admit their homosexuality because they could be beaten and police would do nothing about it
- Women could be beaten by their husbands and it was shrugged off as a domestic issue
- Women were openly harassed in the workplace
- Business could openly dump toxic chemicals in our air and rivers
- Christians would force non-Christian children to participate in christian prayer
- We assassinated our president in front of his wife

What does any of this that you write, have to do with a specific issue that we are dealing with right now today?

I could also site many things today that have been going on currently, that which may even trump some of the things that you have brought forward from that time period, so yes we have been dealing with many issues over time, in which were issues that needed to be fixed or straightened out, and you know what? This is just another one of those issues that need to be straightened out, because it is also abusive to many.

You asked what kind of America we have now and I told you. The America of the 60s was not a fun place.

We are a much more tolerant America than we were in the 60s. That also includes tolerance of beliefs that are not Christian

 

[Intense]

This is why I'm trying to get you to read the link I sent you and to understand that our system is one of natural law. Your argument for rights by majority rule may win you the battle, but it will ultimately lose you the war. If you argue from a natural rights perspective, you will find that the rights you hold dear will be there regardless of petty political considerations like majorities and minorities. Think about what this line from the Declaration of Independence means:These rights are self-evident -- they don't need to be acknowledged by a majority. The Founders are saying, in the vernacular, "Hey, it's obvious, God gave us these rights that nobody can take away!"

Did he give this girl the right to abuse the 99% in that school, when she teamed with the ACLU, and attacked her school?

Majorities don't matter when it comes to natural law. We live under a natural law system. You're missing the forest for the trees here.

No offense, it is you that are misunderstanding the laws we live under.

We are living under the arbitrary interpretation of the Supreme Court, for better or worse. This is not original Design, but a corruption that happened early on, when we abandoned the perspective of 3 Equal Branches, in favor of Court Interpretation of 9 Person's no matter how far from reality, that Interpretation strays. Still, even that is repairable through Constitutional Amendment, which requires 66% of Congress to bring to the Floor for Debate, and 75% for approval. Remedy is Remedy.

Which is it you support again? Principle? Or maybe the Construct, which was purposed and created to serve that Principle? When there is a conflict between the two, where do you align yourself?

 

[Intense]

I was around in 1963. We have a much more moral America

In 1963

- Americans were spitting on black schoolchildren for trying to go to a public school
- Gays were afraid to admit their homosexuality because they could be beaten and police would do nothing about it
- Women could be beaten by their husbands and it was shrugged off as a domestic issue
- Women were openly harassed in the workplace
- Business could openly dump toxic chemicals in our air and rivers
- Christians would force non-Christian children to participate in christian prayer
- We assassinated our president in front of his wife

What does any of this that you write, have to do with a specific issue that we are dealing with right now today?

I could also site many things today that have been going on currently, that which may even trump some of the things that you have brought forward from that time period, so yes we have been dealing with many issues over time, in which were issues that needed to be fixed or straightened out, and you know what? This is just another one of those issues that need to be straightened out, because it is also abusive to many.

You asked what kind of America we have now and I told you. The America of the 60s was not a fun place.

We are a much more tolerant America than we were in the 60s. That also includes tolerance of beliefs that are not Christian

Wherever we find Ourselves, there are choices to make. In that there is no difference between now and then. If you have tom choose between Principle and fitting in, where do you find yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Where then does our freedoms lye in this nation anymore I ask? It apears that we have none by what is going on today in all of this, or at least the 99% in this specific case has been deemed to have none..

Majorities and minorities have everything to do with this kind of stuff, because it cannot be delt with or solutionalized by law in such cases, especially where the law or statute is confused and is not so cut and dry.

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

Did society back her up? We would need a poll or a vote to find out that information now wouldn't we?

Oh you don't want that vote, because it might make you look bad if the opposite were to be the case.

No, we don't need a vote. We already know society backed her up and the banner was removed. It was not done because she was in the majority, it was done because she was right

 

[Crackerjack]

No offense, it is you that are misunderstanding the laws we live under.

None taken, as you are wrong. I've got a pretty good handle on the law, thank you.

We are living under the arbitrary interpretation of the Supreme Court, for better or worse. This is not original Design, but a corruption that happened early on, when we abandoned the perspective of 3 Equal Branches, in favor of Court Interpretation of 9 Person's no matter how far from reality, that Interpretation strays. Still, even that is repairable through Constitutional Amendment, which requires 66% of Congress to bring to the Floor for Debate, and 75% for approval. Remedy is Remedy.

Which is it you support again? Principle? Or maybe the Construct, which was purposed and created to serve that Principle? When there is a conflict between the two, where do you align yourself?

I never said I agree with the Court 100% of the time. I do agree with them this time, however, and in the instances when they rule against Constitutional intent, I stand on the side of the Constitutional intent. I think stare decisis is a double-edged sword and that it allows the Court to not have to face bad decisions made previously.

The Supreme Court is not at all perfect in my estimation.

 

[Intense]

Nothing highlights our freedom more than a 13 year old girl being able to stand up for her rights and have our society back her up

Did society back her up? We would need a poll or a vote to find out that information now wouldn't we?

Oh you don't want that vote, because it might make you look bad if the opposite were to be the case.

No, we don't need a vote. We already know society backed her up and the banner was removed. It was not done because she was in the majority, it was done because she was right

The Banner being Donated, not Purchased by the School, convinces me otherwise. Was is paid for with Public or Private money? Would I have a problem with any group sponsoring such a thing, in a Community in which they lived? No. That is a difference between us. I have no issue with Public Display, under Free Will. Feel free to pray under your bed and in your closet. .... Boo!!!