An Athiest Student as she has claimed, brings a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU?
- Thread starter beagle9
- Start date
Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 7,060
- 3,819
- 955
Ironic aye? I'm not disrupting peoples lives and getting the ACLU involved by giving my opinion on a message board. But I guess you can't see the difference in me leveling a complaint against her actions on here as part of a discussion and what she did. That's cool though. Keep on truckin'
Photonic
Ad astra!
Deal with it. A bigger person would let it go.
Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 7,060
- 3,819
- 955
I wish she would.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 7,060
- 3,819
- 955
Yes ... we all suffer from cognitive bias. Well done.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
The argument over separation of church and state should be dead in the water. Why isn't it?
This one is my favorite
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-SDPmzeOmo]Congresswoman Fallin invites Pastor Sharon Daugherty to lead U.S. House of Representatives in Prayer - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVZYy2q1bM]Senate Invocation - Rev. Don Long - February 1, 2011 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS0_f0YNAA]Senate Opening March 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaadFmhTwD8]Senate Opening February 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIMkhFIlsyE]Senate Opening February 29, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhzudToslvQ]Senate Session 2011-12-16 (09:59:57-11:22:03) - YouTube[/ame]
This one is my favorite
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-SDPmzeOmo]Congresswoman Fallin invites Pastor Sharon Daugherty to lead U.S. House of Representatives in Prayer - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVZYy2q1bM]Senate Invocation - Rev. Don Long - February 1, 2011 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYS0_f0YNAA]Senate Opening March 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaadFmhTwD8]Senate Opening February 7, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIMkhFIlsyE]Senate Opening February 29, 2008 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akkhiEyZFwI]Rev. Falwell Gives Opening Prayer to Congress - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhzudToslvQ]Senate Session 2011-12-16 (09:59:57-11:22:03) - YouTube[/ame]
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 51,488
- 20,852
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #508
Your own words to me at the end of your post, show me just how ignorant you really are... It's really unbelieveable that you would actually take it to where you just took it to at the end of your post. Now I will just sit back and watch people observe your ignorance written in your own words by you...Wow, talk about the silver platter being handed to your victims with your name written upon it...LOL
Thousands and thousands and thousands of threats from those mean nasty ole Christians eh?
Here say is all this is for which you write in defense of here, wherefore it is trumped up inflamatory speech in order to try and counter valid points held within the discussion of the actual case itself. These words of yours hold no value or proof of a better outcome to arise for anyone upon or after the ruling, especially in regards to the constitution or the peoples right not to be abused or taken by these activist judges in support of a minority over a good majority, for whom these judges do operate from the bench alot more these days in regards to. These judges have gone against the "good majority" in these cases, thus taking their freedoms and rights away in the process, and leaving only a few who are given power against the thousands therefore afterwards.
Keep it within the original context of the case please (i.e. between the parties directly involved), otherwise now you are going to bring this new information as given by you, upon who supports who, in which is information that can easily be established and mounted as a defense, be it after the fact or after the case within these studies, yet by word of mouth only. However, we know it was just this girl and the ACLU involved in the situation to begin with against the school all by their lonesome, so why try and add others to the case now in order to strengthen your argument or position, when it doesn't apply within that context of the actual case ? I could now say that their are many for whom do know about the case as well now, and that they are on board with the school who was defending against the suit in which was brought, but I thought the numbers game didnot matter for many in these cases, but only that the dictatorship that has been formed out of it mattered to them the most? The court should have allowed this support to be garnered, way before the issue went to trial, but that isn't what happens in a dictatorship now is it?
You are blind.
And from what I've heard here, you probably aren't any different than this small sampling of twitter responses to this event.
PS. You have no way of knowing that these are Christians, but you try and nail the Christians as a label to a cross, and this by way of the filth that you have found upon this internet, for whom no one has any proof to show that these people are actually "Christians" that are doing this (I garantee them not to be Christians).
Sorry, but it didn't work for you, because people are way on smarter than what you think they are, so maybe you should go back to your fantasy video games or what have you, because the real world isn't any longer a place that you might recognize or rationalize within any longer on such issues.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Your own words to me at the end of your post, show me just how ignorant you really are... It's really unbelieveable that you would actually take it to where you just took it to at the end of your post. Now I will just sit back and watch people observe your ignorance written in your own words by you...Wow, talk about the silver platter being handed to your victims with your name written upon it...LOLThousands and thousands and thousands of threats from those mean nasty ole Christians eh?
Here say is all this is for which you write in defense of here, wherefore it is trumped up inflamatory speech in order to try and counter valid points held within the discussion of the actual case itself. These words of yours hold no value or proof of a better outcome to arise for anyone upon or after the ruling, especially in regards to the constitution or the peoples right not to be abused or taken by these activist judges in support of a minority over a good majority, for whom these judges do operate from the bench alot more these days in regards to. These judges have gone against the "good majority" in these cases, thus taking their freedoms and rights away in the process, and leaving only a few who are given power against the thousands therefore afterwards.
Keep it within the original context of the case please (i.e. between the parties directly involved), otherwise now you are going to bring this new information as given by you, upon who supports who, in which is information that can easily be established and mounted as a defense, be it after the fact or after the case within these studies, yet by word of mouth only. However, we know it was just this girl and the ACLU involved in the situation to begin with against the school all by their lonesome, so why try and add others to the case now in order to strengthen your argument or position, when it doesn't apply within that context of the actual case ? I could now say that their are many for whom do know about the case as well now, and that they are on board with the school who was defending against the suit in which was brought, but I thought the numbers game didnot matter for many in these cases, but only that the dictatorship that has been formed out of it mattered to them the most? The court should have allowed this support to be garnered, way before the issue went to trial, but that isn't what happens in a dictatorship now is it?
You are blind.
And from what I've heard here, you probably aren't any different than this small sampling of twitter responses to this event.
PS. You have no way of knowing that these are Christians, but you try and nail the Christians as a label to a cross, and this by way of the filth that you have found upon this internet, for whom no one has any proof to show that these people are actually "Christians" that are doing this (I garantee them not to be Christians).
Sorry, but it didn't work for you, because people are way on smarter than what you think they are, so maybe you should go back to your fantasy video games or what have you, because the real world isn't any longer a place that you might recognize or rationalize within any longer on such issues.
Fun.
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 7,060
- 3,819
- 955
This illustrates the problem with a two party system in politics. We our all guilty of making absolute statements based on individuals actions and applying them to an entire group. Ill admit to that. It's the easiest way to make an argument however because politics doesn't deal with people in terms of the individual but the groups they belong too. It's the only way to accomplish goals and appeal to the masses. We aren't all just clones of one another. An argument may represent a majority but will very rarely if ever represent everyone. It's good stuff though.
Photonic
Ad astra!
I just wanted to show you what you have said here real quick, you make an excellent point.
"An Argument may represent a majority but will very rarely if ever represent everyone."
How does this not apply to the prayer banner?
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 51,488
- 20,852
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #512
If an argument therefore is found to represent a good majorities wishes and/or will in the end, in which their wishes had then won that argument or case ruled upon in the majorities honor, then of course it doesn't mean that it would, should or could represent everyone in such a situation and/or case being ruled upon, and in favor of a majority that exist within a specific case.
These "specific cases" (like this one) should be looked at only from within a local context, involving a community dispute, town dispute, state dispute or group dispute, where as such issues do exist and are born out of these situations and/or areas daily, and it is of my opinion that the minority in such cases shouldnot win out over the good majority, and especially to not win if that majority is in good standings with most of the people in such a case, whom do agree with the majority that are in good standings with them on these issues.
Period !
Now when it comes to the whole of the United States being involved in a landmark case, then it may be that possibly the government would take up the case, and then rule against the majority differently as an outcome, just as it were in the civil rights situation, where the government ruled in favor of the minority over the majority back then (due to a "bad majority"), in which needed to be over ruled by the feds in such a case as that one was.
This gave the government ideas however, and they extended their hand just a little bit to far in all of this (IMHO) to date, where as it needs to role back now to it's imaginary lines that it had drawn in the sand forward, otherwise retreating back to the line that pertained to the US being involved as a whole type cases, in which involved the whole of the nation as a whole when ruling upon such cases. In this case however, it was (IMHO) not one of those cases that involved the whole of this nation, nor would it have had an outcome that would have involved or hurt the whole of this nation in which was not to be found within this specific case.
Last edited:
Photonic
Ad astra!
If an argument therefore is found to represent a good majorities wishes and/or will in the end, in which their wishes had then won that argument or case ruled upon in the majorities honor, then of course it doesn't mean that it would, should or could represent everyone in such a situation and/or case being ruled upon, and in favor of a majority that exist within a specific case.
These "specific cases" (like this one) should be looked at only from within a local context, involving a community dispute, town dispute, state dispute or group dispute, where as such issues do exist and are born out of these situations and/or areas daily, and it is of my opinion that the minority in such cases shouldnot win out over the good majority, and especially to not win if that majority is in good standings with most of the people in such a case, whom do agree with the majority that are in good standings with them on these issues.
Period !
Now when it comes to the whole of the United States being involved in a landmark case, then it may be that possibly the government would take up the case, and then rule against the majority differently as an outcome, just as it were in the civil rights situation, where the government ruled in favor of the minority over the majority back then (due to a "bad majority"), in which needed to be over ruled by the feds in such a case as that one was.
This gave the government ideas however, and they extended their hand just a little bit to far in all of this (IMHO) to date, where as it needs to role back now to it's imaginary lines that it had drawn in the sand forward, otherwise retreating back to the line that pertained to the US being involved as a whole type cases, in which involved the whole of the nation as a whole when ruling upon such cases. In this case however, it was (IMHO) not one of those cases that involved the whole of this nation, nor would it have had an outcome that would have involved or hurt the whole of this nation in which was not to be found within this specific case.
Considering the way the founding fathers often acted towards religion, I have a hard time believing you. Considering the evidence points in the opposite.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
If an argument therefore is found to represent a good majorities wishes and/or will in the end, in which their wishes had then won that argument or case ruled upon in the majorities honor, then of course it doesn't mean that it would, should or could represent everyone in such a situation and/or case being ruled upon, and in favor of a majority that exist within a specific case.
These "specific cases" (like this one) should be looked at only from within a local context, involving a community dispute, town dispute, state dispute or group dispute, where as such issues do exist and are born out of these situations and/or areas daily, and it is of my opinion that the minority in such cases shouldnot win out over the good majority, and especially to not win if that majority is in good standings with most of the people in such a case, whom do agree with the majority that are in good standings with them on these issues.
Period !
Now when it comes to the whole of the United States being involved in a landmark case, then it may be that possibly the government would take up the case, and then rule against the majority differently as an outcome, just as it were in the civil rights situation, where the government ruled in favor of the minority over the majority back then (due to a "bad majority"), in which needed to be over ruled by the feds in such a case as that one was.
This gave the government ideas however, and they extended their hand just a little bit to far in all of this (IMHO) to date, where as it needs to role back now to it's imaginary lines that it had drawn in the sand forward, otherwise retreating back to the line that pertained to the US being involved as a whole type cases, in which involved the whole of the nation as a whole when ruling upon such cases. In this case however, it was (IMHO) not one of those cases that involved the whole of this nation, nor would it have had an outcome that would have involved or hurt the whole of this nation in which was not to be found within this specific case.
Considering the way the founding fathers often acted towards religion, I have a hard time believing you. Considering the evidence points in the opposite.
Exactly how was their attitude towards religion? Or should I say Christianity?
I really don't understand the debate it's already been proven by their actions how they felt about religion.
Againsheila
Gold Member
If an argument therefore is found to represent a good majorities wishes and/or will in the end, in which their wishes had then won that argument or case ruled upon in the majorities honor, then of course it doesn't mean that it would, should or could represent everyone in such a situation and/or case being ruled upon, and in favor of a majority that exist within a specific case.
These "specific cases" (like this one) should be looked at only from within a local context, involving a community dispute, town dispute, state dispute or group dispute, where as such issues do exist and are born out of these situations and/or areas daily, and it is of my opinion that the minority in such cases shouldnot win out over the good majority, and especially to not win if that majority is in good standings with most of the people in such a case, whom do agree with the majority that are in good standings with them on these issues.
Period !
Now when it comes to the whole of the United States being involved in a landmark case, then it may be that possibly the government would take up the case, and then rule against the majority differently as an outcome, just as it were in the civil rights situation, where the government ruled in favor of the minority over the majority back then (due to a "bad majority"), in which needed to be over ruled by the feds in such a case as that one was.
This gave the government ideas however, and they extended their hand just a little bit to far in all of this (IMHO) to date, where as it needs to role back now to it's imaginary lines that it had drawn in the sand forward, otherwise retreating back to the line that pertained to the US being involved as a whole type cases, in which involved the whole of the nation as a whole when ruling upon such cases. In this case however, it was (IMHO) not one of those cases that involved the whole of this nation, nor would it have had an outcome that would have involved or hurt the whole of this nation in which was not to be found within this specific case.
Considering the way the founding fathers often acted towards religion, I have a hard time believing you. Considering the evidence points in the opposite.
Exactly how was their attitude towards religion? Or should I say Christianity?
I really don't understand the debate it's already been proven by their actions how they felt about religion.
Several of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. Hence freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The letter that everyone heralds as their excuse for the "wall of seperation of church and state) by TJ is ended with a prayer.
Our founding fathers never intended to ban religion in public, not in buildings, not in schools and not in congress, which is started with a prayer.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Incorrect.
We have the right to be free from religion in public venues where Constitutional case law so determines such action in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Evidence in support?
Otherwise the Supreme Court disagrees with you, the Court is the only relevant authority.
Againsheila
Gold Member
I posted a link earlier where a court ordered a church to hold a wedding for lesbians...you never commented on that. Do you really think the court has the right to tell a church what they can do? No! The court was wrong both times. There is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion, if our forefathers had intended there to be no religion ever displayed in any government or public buildings they never would have set it up to start congress with a prayer.
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 51,488
- 20,852
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #518
Why is it that certain people can't understand that the "supreme court", is always under attack, but it is, as it should be under attack by the good majority now, because it has been getting this stuff wrong for quite sometime now, and this specific case (when cases like this arise) flat out prove that they have been getting it wrong ? Now what people need to do, is to submit an issue of or a state of grievance to the court on such matters, and this by weight of a huge majority in petition of, because the court can be proven wrong in such cases, and thus can correct itself if nessesary at any given time for the good majority, who could be found "right" very easily in such a case.
The devil has had it so great in this nation recently, and for quite sometime through out all of this he has enjoyed himself, where as he (through his minions and/or followers), has led the court(s) in respect to such matters into a hole, and wildly he has done this from a minority standpoint of influence, interpretation of, and/or in view of upon such issues, but the peole can change all this at anytime when they are ready, but first they have to deal with all the spin, lies, and manipulation in which has been attacking the people for whom were asleep for to long now in trust of, and thus these minions or demons have been controlling the court from a minority standpoint of influence and in view of for to long now. It has done this by way of rogue activist judges and confusing interpretation, that has duped the majority of the people for longer than a minute and a day now.
Like Obama loves to say, it's time for change, and so I say yes, we do need a fundemental change to take place in this nation again, especially in regards to such matters, but first we have to deal with the demons that have led this nation into a hole, by getting them out of office soon, and getting our courts back on our side again.
Yes people can stand there and say that they are law abiders, and that the courts have ruled excetra excetra on these issues, but this nation is also a nation that changes for the better and/or even for the worst sometimes through in and through out history, yet this is all depending, so if we as a good majority wish for it to change again, then it will..
Last edited:
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Explain to me, my little Marxist friend, how it is that Jefferson commissioned church services in the House Of Representatives, if religious expression was to be outlawed, as you claim?
Ah, the Supreme Soviet, dictatorship of the Judiciary.
The absurdities you claim, comrade.....
Mr.Nick
VIP Member
- May 10, 2011
- 9,604
- 719
- 83
The majority does not define rights for everyone else.I heard on the news today, about a teen who is 16 years old, and for whom had somehow teamed up with the ACLU against her school by way of a lawsuit, because the school had a banner that had religious words upon it, in which was displayed for all to read in the school I'm guessing.
Now this is what rubs me wrong with cases like this, where as you have this gullable teen and the ACLU, along with an idiot judge, for whom I think does not take at all into consideration, the very democracy for which we all try to live with and live for in this nation, where as lets say that the school in a whopping 99% wanted the banner to fly in that specific school over the 1% that didnot want it to fly, and where as what if the parents of the children wanted that banner to fly also, yet you have "ONE", and her accomplices for money representing her in an evil mean spirited way, overiding the school, it's majority in staff, and it's majority in students, for whom want the banner to stay, along with the parents well wishes also in the situation, to then somehow override and kill the will and the rights of the people & students in a majority, and this be it the whole lot of them, by way of "ONE" who had a problem with it ????????
Kidding me right?????? Has this nation finally lost it's mind completely??????
Yes, it might be good if the government gets out of most everything anymore in this nation that pertains to our social economic situation now , because it (the feds) are being used by devils to destroy the very fabric and slim goodness that is left in this nation, and this by devils whom have figured this sort of evilness out against the ones who are still good and for whom are now left in many cases such as this one, as still a majority..
If the majority chose to repeal the First Amendment, you would be bitching and moaning about being persecuted.
There is nothing illegal about a poster...
I love how the left bitches about trivial shit like religion...
In what universe to a bunch of words infringe on YOUR rights???
There is a lot of shit I have to put up with everyday that bends me the wrong way -- funny how I don't have the right to not be insulted - yet these atheist ***** demand that religious symbols and text be taken down against the will of a majority SO THEY ARE NOT OFFENDED...
What makes those atheist ***** so special???
Oh and lets not forget - THERE IS NO "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" in the first place.... Anyone who parrots that bullshit is either ignorant or knowingly lying.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Virgina Democrats passes a law that violates racial and gender discrimination laws- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 Paula White: "Christian" Zionist and White House Staffer (Looney Tunes)- Started by SaxonJackson
- Replies: 3
-
-
UK borrowing costs hit highest level since 2008 financial crisis- Started by Captain Caveman
- Replies: 0
-
EU says it will help with Hormuz .... Ahem... After ceasefire 🙄🙄- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 7
