posted
Good point, bdgee. My sister happens to worship the Goddess Kali! As the Constitution allows, we're planning to erect a 30 foot high marble statue of her in front of the Pentagon next month.
Communism? No. They are the ones the Constitution gives the power of taxation and spending to. That's how the government works. The President can veto the spending but the Legislature can overrule his veto with a 2/3rd's majority.
bdgee,
I don't derive my understanding of the Constitution from anything other than reading the document. It is very clear and very simple. There are certain RIGHTS which the Constitution guarantees. Anything which the Constitution does not guarantee is subject to regulation by either the states or the legislature.
As for your posts and my posts, it is quite easy to see who is insulting who, it isn't me. Your last post addressed to me is almost nothing but insults. They don't mean a thing to me, they also don't help your position.
Just so you know the difference, you don't have the Constitutional right to swing your fist. It was never considered important enough to include in the Bill of Rights, freely practicing your religion however is.
IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have an understanding of the Constitution, derived or otherwise achieved!
Also, you don't have an understanding of the English language. That comes fully to light when you can't inderstand my statement, which I repeat, "Have the courtesy to cease attempting to interpret me and what I did or didn't say or how I do or do not think. Do not address me again until you have matured intellectually."
Now here is a statement clearly out of left field that bluntly defies Constitution, "Just so you know the difference, you don't have the Constitutional right to swing your fist." I must assume you rely on not finding that right among those enumerated in the Constitution, while ignoring the following to two Amendments in the Bill of Rights:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In otherwords, so that it isn't too difficult to understand, just because the constitution failed to specifically state that you have some right, if it didn't deny that right, you have it. Thus, each of us has the Constitutional righnt to swing a fist.
Where ever in the Constitution does it say you have any right to practice religion. Have I misread? Is there a place in the Constitution that the word "practice" can be found? I don't think so....particularly it never speaks of "practicing a religion! So, via your own argument, it never gave you that right, and you may not practice religion.
That, of course is why voodoo isn't the dominate religion in the United States, After all, it is unquestionably a religion, but looses it's substance when it can not be practiced, rendering it impractical.
IP: Logged |
When the Constitution does not specifically outline a right, it is not a Constitutional right. Our Constitutional rights are very specific and enumerated in the Constitution.
It isn't difficult to understand at all. Swinging your fist is not a Constitutional right. Freely practicing your religion is.
"Where in the Constitution does it say you have any right to practice religion?"
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You may very well be misreading it if you can't see it, FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
If you check the definition of exercise, practice is one of the terms.
If you check the definition of practice, exercise is one of the terms.
IP: Logged |
He chooses to not be bright enough to handle the logic.
On the one hand he insist that since the word "from" does not appear in a phrase, any statement of a right imvolving that word from that phrase doesn't exist. But, when he wants (notice he makes it his, not your option) to stretch the meanings of phrases from the Constitution, SO THAT IT WOULD GRANT HIM THE POWER TO DENY RIGHTS TO ANOTHER, he quickly abandons that line of reasoning.
Yep, it is getting stupid.......we suffer a fool.
IP: Logged |
posted
unfortunately? there is a lot of this "going around"
the evangels are looking into the Bible to find an excuse to force their beliefs on others, and claiming it is part of the practice of their religion... that is the same mentality the Taliban uses/d and the also the same that led to the Inquisition...
it is also the same mentality used by abortion clinic bombers and doctor murderers..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
You are correct that you have the right to express your opinions but not force others to accept them or live by them. I've said the equivalent thing numerous times in this discussion.
That is freedom of.
Freedom from which bdgee wants does not allow you to express your opinions. He doesn't want to see it. He does not have that right. He wants freedom from.
bdgee,
You are the one inserting the word "from" not I and you have yet to prove that it is a valid interpretation, it is not. I have not stretched the meanings of any phrase, did you even bother to look up the words "practice" and "exercise" before you commented? No interpretation there, they share the same meaning.
4Art,
You are free to erect any statue you want where ever you can get a location to erect it. You have that right, go for it.
IP: Logged |
Freedom from which bdgee wants does not allow you to express your opinions. He doesn't want to see it. He does not have that right. He wants freedom from.
i think you are cognitively deficient...
you are misinterpreting simple statements in ways that i can only assume are intentional...
the fact is? you did tell me that the supreme court upheld the "under God" clause... they didn't.. the list of your misinterpretaions is so long, i'm not going to bother going thru and itemising them... you seem to see things only the way you want to see them, instead of trying to interpret what OTHERS are trying to tell you...
and you ask to be "set down" ....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I don't believe I am misinterpreting simple statements. This are bdgee's words on October 15th in this thread:
Originally posted by bdgee:
"Well, I am decided. I don't give a hoot what your religion is or isn't. I want my right to continue that and assurance that your religion and your way of practicing it does not impose on me even in some tiny way, such as having to see or hear the beliefs of your religion on public property or in public processes. And that is the case even if your religion is mine!"
He doesn't want to see or hear any religion. It's pretty clear.
The fact is the Supreme Court very recently heard oral arguements on the "under God" phrase. As they ruled the individual did not have custody of his daughter, he could not bring this case to the court, they refused it. Now you might not want to call that upholding it, and technically it is not upholding it but it sure isn't overturning it either. They had the chance, they could have chosen to rule one way or the other. This too we already discussed.
I don't try to interpret what others are trying to tell me. I read what they write and accept what they write as their position. There is no interpretation required to bdgee's statement above that I can see. He is very clear.
What I see is people who are trying to add things to thier interpretations of the Constitution which are not there. There is no freedom from religion, speach, assembly or the press. All are basic rights which the individual is free to practice. They were considered so important they were outlined.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am decided. I don't give a hoot what your religion is or isn't. I want my right to continue that and assurance that your religion and your way of practicing it does not impose on me even in some tiny way, such as having to see or hear the beliefs of your religion on public property or in public processes. And that is the case even if your religion is mine!"
He doesn't want to see or hear any religion. It's pretty clear.
did you see the words public property or in public processes? he means in our govt or at places that the TAXPAYERS support...and that was the Founding Fathers intent..it's been well documented and some of that documentation has been posted for you right here...
so your interpretation of bdgees statemnt falls short IMO....
not trying to be rude to you, just leading you to the the water... i understand what YOU want, but the constitution is quite clear.... a president can go to church and pray, but he has no business giving taxpayers money to churches or calling national press conference and leading the country in prayer....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Allah is a specific term in Arabic which translates to God in English
I'm not sure what Krishna is other than a group.
If I were to name my God, it would be Jehovah or Yahweh.
When I say "God" in under God, I know to whom I refer to, just as anyone else who uses the English term is going to refer to their "God" not my God. But if they want to substitute Allah or Krishna or any other diety in the pledge when they say it, they are more than welcome to.
No one is forced to recite the pledge, no one is forced to recite the word "God" in the pledge.
If you don't want your tax money going to any church then contact your legislator and express your feelings to him. You may also vote for legislators who support your view on the subject.
There are lots of things I don't want my tax dollars going to and that is what I do.
Yes I did see "public property or public processes", I also see "in any tiny way" with the public property or public processess as two examples, note the "such as"
Public property is also the streets, the parks, the Mall at Washington DC.
I don't believe anyone has shown that it was the intent of the founding fathers to prevent the use of these areas for our Constitutional rights. These areas are often used for gatherings for many reasons including religious ones.
IP: Logged |
posted
if you saw it? then why did claim he said something else?
and i think you have to beleive the founding fathers did intend to keep the church and the state separate if you read the constitution...
it's funny, the very people that are calling judges "activists" are in fact the "activists"
you state that a person doesn't have to say the words 'under God" if they don't want to, but that's not true....
you may not understand peer pressure, but most kids understand it very well....
Yahweh? this implies you are a Witness...
that explains much. i have a hard time accepting your statement that you don't discuss politics in Church tho.... i have no doubt that you have ebeen well coached by the memebers of your "congregation"(proper term?) in these issues...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I didn't claim he said something else. He said what he said,
"Well, I am decided. I don't give a hoot what your religion is or isn't. I want my right to continue that and assurance that your religion and your way of practicing it does not impose on me even in some tiny way, such as having to see or hear the beliefs of your religion on public property or in public processes. And that is the case even if your religion is mine!"
He doesn't want it to "impose" on him "even in some tiny way" Public property means stepping outside your door and walking to the street and or the sidewalk in some locations.
I have read the Constitution and not once have I seen any attempt other than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in it. That is not a seperation of church and state. Congress is but one branch of the Government, not "the state". They are the branch which is repsonsible for the creation and passage of laws. As joint sessions of Congress are opened with prayer, it is pretty obvious they don't see a seperation of church and state. And that prayer is not always Christian. On September 14th, the prayer was conducted by a Hindu priest.
I fully understand peer pressure. I never gave into it, I was questioned often about it.
If by "Witness" you mean Jehovah's witness, no. I currently attend a United Methodist church and no, we neither discuss politics from the pulpit, nor have I been coached by any members of the congregation.
Our church has a Sunday School hour which usually deals with some aspect of scripture or the study of a certain book of the Bible. Then we have an hour sermon which deals with either a moral issue, Biblical history or more specific scripture messages.
I'm not saying that people standing in the hallway or at the entrance never talk politics, I'm sure it comes up. It is not done as part of the "message".
IP: Logged |
posted
Overwhelmingly, it is those with the poorest appreciation of what they speak that are the first and most eager to speak against the rights of others. Too, those so intellectually challenged are quick to deprive others of rights so that they may increase their own beyond the limits of the Constitution.
I've never figured out how limiting your prospective affords any benifit to me. In my experience, the more I can empower you, be it education, rights, wealth, or whatever else, the better a place this world is for to live.
I seldom find any person, with even limited education and intellect, who actually grants serious consideration to the question of the rights of individuals, that opposes any persons rights. Indeed, it is hard to find truely honest and thoughtful inindividuals that don't want to expand the rights of individuals. (I do NOT speak of the "rights" of organzations, businesses, religions, or etc., for it logically stands, any right or privilege that one of them has flows actually from the rights and privileges of the individuals within it. Speaking legally, without the rights of the individuals within it, it was granted none by the Constitution.)
Here I find one so closed minded and selfish and of such limited ability or willingness (or both) to work with reason and the English language, that he seems to believe the Constitution speaks with respect to rights of religions and religious organizations, when clearly, according to the Constitution there can be no law so constructed.
With the exception of the Bar (the biggest "error" in the Constitution), where in the Constitution is there even one phrase granting, directly or indirectly, any right or authority to any nongovernmental body or group or organization, including one that is religious?
Where in the Constitution does it say, directly or indirectly, that when you wish to deprive me or someone else of some right, all you need to do is claim a right, real or imaginary, and declare it to lie in at least in an abutting position? (Where in the constitution does it award you with that ability even supposing it is of circumstance outside your wants or wishes?)
No, Glass..., this has stepped well beyond stupid......it is demeaning and degrading. This guy doesn't even show the courtesy of remembering the lies and nonsense that he has put forth and been corrected on. He just spews forth more of them and restates the the bunch.
Yet!!!! I will have to agree with one of his claims. I am very very very familiar with the philosophy of the United Methodist Church and can attest that it strives to not influence its members politically. That part of, so called, "Methodism" preceded the writing of our Constitution. I have seen one or two diviations from that, but they didn't survive long. (Political agendas do not harmonize with "Methodism". Outside of religious politics, of course....Methodism was a major factor in the breakup of the Catholic rule of Europe.) Thus, knowing that and noting his "I currently attend..." rather than the more normal "I am a....", I must conclude that he learned extreme bigotry within some other religion as a youth, which is how most people are indoctrinated into a radical belief systems. (Like maybe the Hitler youth)
Here is an interesting listing from Roget's (the emphasis is mine):
Your insults still don't cover up your lack of an argument. They also neither bother or affect me in the least.
You can keep trying though, someone might buy it.
So the Bill of Rights is an "error" now. Does that mean in your view it has no importance? The Constitution would never have been ratified without it. It is in the Bill of Rights that our individual rights are outlined and protected, the same ones you "try" to emphasize.
I don't remember any lies because I do not lie. I do occasionally make mistakes and when shown I am wrong admit to it. You however have not shown me to be wrong.
If you want to know something about me, it is better to ask rather than speculate. I used the term "currently attending" because I follow the Bible first and foremost, a denomination second. I have attended the United Methodist Church since I was 10.
Your posts are giving me a great lesson on extreme bigotry. I guess that's a plus.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: 4art? what's your point?
yes people do carry the Son thing too far at times, but all in all? there is no point in attacking a fiath that has seen and contributed to bringing us humans out of the stone age....
i have no problem with critisizing indivuduals actions, especially when they are bad and use Christ as a tool, but attacking the belief system is just wrong IMO.... Christ's teachings are solid, and if they were actually adhered to by all of the people that claim Him? we'd be living in a much better world... i see no point in questioning whether he existed or not....
other than to cause trouble
Very nicely said glass... You are gifted with a great deal of tact.
-------------------- Spend Word For Word With Me And I Shall Make Your Wit Bankrupt.
IP: Logged |
posted
I overlooked this. The reason I questioned Christ's existence was because Aragorn said he needed to see something in order to believe it.
Therefore I asked him for physical evidence of Christ.
He didn't have any, sadly.
Causing trouble was just a bonus.
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: 4art? what's your point?
yes people do carry the Son thing too far at times, but all in all? there is no point in attacking a fiath that has seen and contributed to bringing us humans out of the stone age....
i have no problem with critisizing indivuduals actions, especially when they are bad and use Christ as a tool, but attacking the belief system is just wrong IMO.... Christ's teachings are solid, and if they were actually adhered to by all of the people that claim Him? we'd be living in a much better world... i see no point in questioning whether he existed or not....
other than to cause trouble
Very nicely said glass... You are gifted with a great deal of tact.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
