Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well how are these so called rights of people aquired then, if not by a consensus among the people who then establish those rights by a consensus found in a majority?Have you read the Constitution recently? It talks about the rights of people, not of majorities and/or minorities.Nor does the minority define rights for everyone, but in this case just one did with the help of an idiot out of touch (with the majority) judge, and the out of whack commie ACLU..
Oh, so now we are going to get into some kind of slinging about how ignorant we both can be, which is apart from the subject as you are baiting me with, but I am not buying it or biting it. Sorry!We could go right now, and bring back hundreds of things that the government supports and allows in which is contridictory to your alledged rock solid views held upon the government, in which are views and laws that fall right up under the same category that you love to speak against me with, but yet these don't apply within yours and the corrupt governments hypocrytical belief system, in which it now imposes on all of us these days does it, and especially so it wouldnot then suit with your attacks on me if were brought up, and may even counter your bull in the situation, yet only if you thought more freely, instead of more controlled as you do here, would you then see the light or the error of your ways maybe.
Hypotheticals? I don't deal with ignorant hypo's is all, sorry I meant to tell you that but forgot...
- Please learn to avoid using run-on sentences. It's nearly impossible to read such writing.
- The only thing that is being "imposed" upon you relative to this subject is the restriction on religious displays on government-owned (in other words, not yours) property.
- The way I'm thinking is relative to the Constitution and the case law on this subject. If you think the Constitution and/or the case law is wrong, please elaborate using specific examples and not vague generalities.
- Like I said, you don't acknowledge hypothetical situations you can't address. The only one here that's ignorant regarding this subject is you. Maybe you'll make progress, and maybe you'll cling to your ignorance. That is for you to decide.
If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!What belief did she impose?So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?
Answer - none.
yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.
Again, which parts of the Constitution and the case law upon which this ruling rests do you disagree? Please be specific.Oh, so now we are going to get into some kind of slinging about how ignorant we both can be, which is apart from the subject as you are baiting me with, but I am not buying it or biting it. Sorry!
If you get offended easily, then go and get the ACLU to help you take down my thread here, but first ask the majority here what they think before you do that ok?
Incorrect.Not at all.. She has every right to comment on it and to have her own opinion. We do have freedom of speech here. She may have even gone to the student body and tried to bring it down by a vote of the students. Instead, she went to the ACLU and got her way forced on everybody, regardless.
Nothing was forced on anyone.
Americans dont go begging to other Americans please give me my rights.
Last, whether or not one has rights is not determined by majority rule.
And they are never wrong are they?Says who?In 1963 you could hold public prayer in school and many schools opened the day with the Lords prayer.
The mural was a throwback to an earlier era and should have come down decades ago
The US Supreme Court
Not sure where the posters comment went, in which I am responding to in this reply, otherwise it apears that I am commenting to myself....((((Whereas)))) is one word. huh?
Oh man you made me laugh, but please watch your language ok....
It's okay.
You're 15.
It happens.
whereas - definition of whereas by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This banner has been up for 49 years. All of a sudden because of one bratty girl, they have to take it down. It's a highschool for goodness sake.. do you really belive that banner is going to influence anyone not already a Christian to say a Christian prayer?
She should have just kept her head down, and said she agreed with every else, right?
Not at all.. She has every right to comment on it and to have her own opinion. We do have freedom of speech here. She may have even gone to the student body and tried to bring it down by a vote of the students. Instead, she went to the ACLU and got her way forced on everybody, regardless.
And they are never wrong are they?
So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!What belief did she impose?
Answer - none.
yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.
I suspect the '63 class president got it back. Now they can go hang it on any private property they wish, provided they have the owner's permission.So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them that nothing, she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.
And they are never wrong are they?Says who?
The US Supreme Court
Well until the judges seats had changed, I was only hoping that it wouldnot be the liberal idiots on the bench who made the idiotic rulings as they did, but they did, so all I and many could do, is hopefully endure until the bench soon changed for the better just as it has since done. Now we will see and have seen a lot less intrusion into our lives by the Supreme court, instead of before as we were having during certain weird and stranger time periods.. Hurray Hurray!And they are never wrong are they?
Whom else would you make the authority as to the meaning of the Constitution?
So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).
Where specifically are they wrong as to Establishment Clause jurisprudence? Please be specific.Well until the judges seats had changed, I was only hoping that it wouldnot be the liberal idiots on the bench who made the idiotic rulings as they did, but they did, so all I and many could do, is hopefully endure until the bench soon changed for the better just as it has since done. Now we will see and have seen a lot less intrusion into our lives by the Supreme court, instead of before as we were having during certain weird and stranger time periods.. Hurray Hurray!Whom else would you make the authority as to the meaning of the Constitution?And they are never wrong are they?
What belief did she impose?So she sues, and imposes her beliefs on many against their will, but we seem to be in denial on that one for some reason now aren't we?
Answer - none.
yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.
So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!yep, she's forcing "non-belief" on people by taking away a religious banner that was given to the school by their graduating class 49 years ago. Worse, she's forcing the school to insult the graduating class of 1963 by throwing their gift back in their faces. IMHO, the graduating class of 1963 should sue her for the cost of the banner plus interest so they can produce something for the school that she and the court will allow to be displayed.
Just curious, are you an OWS supporter?I suspect the '63 class president got it back. Now they can go hang it on any private property they wish, provided they have the owner's permission.So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them that nothing, she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!
The banner is just a symbol in the case, in which is a case that involves a much larger & broader picture of what is going on in this nation now, so you can pull that crap if you want, but it doesn't fly here...So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them of that something, thus giving them nothing in return, so she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).If she were putting up a banner that says "There is no God" or the like, the situation would be analogous. But now there is nothing in place of what was there. How can "nothing" advocate for anything? "Nothing" is not atheist, agnostic or religious. "Nothing" is nothing!
Yes, she should feel horrible, she had a banner taken down! Not something trivial like a handicap accessible ramp or pizza for lunch on fridays, but a banner! The nerve of some people.
Just curious, are you an OWS supporter?I suspect the '63 class president got it back. Now they can go hang it on any private property they wish, provided they have the owner's permission.So I agree that nothing is nothing which is right, and now for those who had something before hand, she has now denide them that nothing, she ought to feel horrible after doing such a thing (IMHO).
Not in the least.
