[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Republican Logic:
Thump the consitution for the amendments you like, and totally disregard the ones you don’t
Usually it is the 14th or the 16th…pretty weird they are now wiping their ass with the first…[/quote]
This should be interesting. Just a thought, if this gets shot down, which is should assuming it passing and reaches the SCOTUS, do state firarm laws also get shot down? This law violates the 1st and firearm laws violate the 2nd, correct?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Republican Logic:
Thump the consitution for the amendments you like, and totally disregard the ones you don’t
Usually it is the 14th or the 16th…pretty weird they are now wiping their ass with the first…[/quote]
I’m not intersted enough to look into that beyond the link you gave. Saying that, based on that link, that is utter bullshit.
Prayer in school doesn’t bother me in the slightest, and I’m not, nor do I raise my kids particularly religious. (I would take them to whatever church they asked though and sit with them without complaint…) I’m also a atrong supporter of teaching theology in public schools.
All that aside, which is only somewhat realted anyway, establishment of a state religion is utter bullshit, and needs to go.
And the lefts’ gun push fits your first sentence as well.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Republican Logic:
Thump the consitution for the amendments you like, and totally disregard the ones you don’t
Usually it is the 14th or the 16th…pretty weird they are now wiping their ass with the first…[/quote]
You make it sound like the entire Republican Party is on board with this. There are only 9 Representatives in the State of North Carolina House of Representatives that back this bill. All coming from areas that would like this. These Representatives are representing their constituents. This is not going to get very far.
You know that I am for Christianity, so having prayer in schools is a good thing. It is amazing how we take religion out of schools, and allow it in the prison system. God is good for criminals but not the greater population? Liberals are so screwed up.
^Guess I should have actually read the article
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God is good for criminals but not the greater population? Liberals are so screwed up.[/quote]
I think people get all freaked out by the whole idea of “indoctrination” when it comes to that, and the difference being prisoners are old enough to choose to follow the words they want and kids are too young to deside.
But, and I’ll stick to this, good parents prevent the indoctrination that already happens in school and any amount that could happen.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God is good for criminals but not the greater population? Liberals are so screwed up.[/quote]
I think people get all freaked out by the whole idea of “indoctrination” when it comes to that, and the difference being prisoners are old enough to choose to follow the words they want and kids are too young to deside.
But, and I’ll stick to this, good parents prevent the indoctrination that already happens in school and any amount that could happen. [/quote]
That might have come across as my point, but not intended that way. My daughter’s school just has a moment of silence, and I am all right with that. It just seems that Liberals and the ACLU just wants God out of everything. In the article is talked about a City Council Meeting where the ACLU sued the City because of a prayer. The City Council, adults, want to pray to God for wisdom, and the freaking ACLU sues them. Really?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God is good for criminals but not the greater population? Liberals are so screwed up.[/quote]
I think people get all freaked out by the whole idea of “indoctrination” when it comes to that, and the difference being prisoners are old enough to choose to follow the words they want and kids are too young to deside.
But, and I’ll stick to this, good parents prevent the indoctrination that already happens in school and any amount that could happen. [/quote]
That might have come across as my point, but not intended that way. My daughter’s school just has a moment of silence, and I am all right with that. It just seems that Liberals and the ACLU just wants God out of everything. In the article is talked about a City Council Meeting where the ACLU sued the City because of a prayer. The City Council, adults, want to pray to God for wisdom, and the freaking ACLU sues them. Really? [/quote]
We are on the same page here. I laugh when people get all worked up over christmas trees and nativity scenes in public squares. As if there aren’t more important things to spend time working on.
If you don’t like it, just keep walking. Otherwise bring you kids down to look at the pretty lights and stop being a kill joy. It doesn’t have to mean jesus to a person for them to enjoy the beauty and sense of togetherness something like a tree lighting party has.
I think the moment of silence thing is a good compromise.
I can see where the feel of “take god out of everything” statement comes from… That is a post for a different thread though, and more time to think about it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God is good for criminals but not the greater population? Liberals are so screwed up.[/quote]
I think people get all freaked out by the whole idea of “indoctrination” when it comes to that, and the difference being prisoners are old enough to choose to follow the words they want and kids are too young to deside.
But, and I’ll stick to this, good parents prevent the indoctrination that already happens in school and any amount that could happen. [/quote]
That might have come across as my point, but not intended that way. My daughter’s school just has a moment of silence, and I am all right with that. It just seems that Liberals and the ACLU just wants God out of everything. In the article is talked about a City Council Meeting where the ACLU sued the City because of a prayer. The City Council, adults, want to pray to God for wisdom, and the freaking ACLU sues them. Really? [/quote]
We are on the same page here. I laugh when people get all worked up over christmas trees and nativity scenes in public squares. As if there aren’t more important things to spend time working on.
If you don’t like it, just keep walking. Otherwise bring you kids down to look at the pretty lights and stop being a kill joy. It doesn’t have to mean jesus to a person for them to enjoy the beauty and sense of togetherness something like a tree lighting party has.
I think the moment of silence thing is a good compromise.
I can see where the feel of “take god out of everything” statement comes from… That is a post for a different thread though, and more time to think about it. [/quote]
I agree re: Christmas trees and the like.
But I don’t want my kid being told to pray in school. Ever.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I don’t want my kid being told to pray in school. Ever.[/quote]
Eh… Doesn’t bother me really. I’m also leaning towards sending my daughter to private school, and the best ones all are catholic around here so…
I guess I have enough faith in my bond with my kids that no amount of prayer is going to change our family. And shoot, my kids may grow up and feel that life is a better one and want to be involved in a religion, I’m not going to stop them if it makes them happy.
How do you feel about the theology classes? (I believe we have discussed this before.)
I’m not a Constitutional scholar(or a scholar of any kind), but there appear to be some differences between the First and Second Amendments.
The First Amendment states: 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.
-It does not say: 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.
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-It does not say: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by Congress.
States maintained religions for many years after the country was established(and it seems most were removed by the states themselves). States attempted to restrict the Second Amendment a few times, and those attempts were struck down.
That said, I certainly prefer to see the First Amendment interpreted as applying to the states, as interpreting it as only applying to the federal government is sure to cause problems(such as states deciding they have the right to further restrict firearms).
I also agree with those who don’t want their children being forced to pray(I also would not want any public school teacher I have met leading my children in prayer).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I don’t want my kid being told to pray in school. Ever.[/quote]
Eh… Doesn’t bother me really. I’m also leaning towards sending my daughter to private school, and the best ones all are catholic around here so…
I guess I have enough faith in my bond with my kids that no amount of prayer is going to change our family. And shoot, my kids may grow up and feel that life is a better one and want to be involved in a religion, I’m not going to stop them if it makes them happy.
How do you feel about the theology classes? (I believe we have discussed this before.)[/quote]
Religious studies, theology, etc. are noble academic pursuits. I took a few undergraduate courses on the Bible and on Medieval Christianity. I wish I had been introduced to the subject sooner.
But I don’t want my children being told to pray, in the same way, I’m sure, that Christian America would twist itself inside out with rage if its children were compelled to recite Muslim prayers in school every morning. In the same way that I would have refused it to the death had I been told to do so as a child.
SMH I’m with you, I dont mind Xmas trees and all that stuff, but making a kid pray just seems extreme.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not a Constitutional scholar(or a scholar of any kind), but there appear to be some differences between the First and Second Amendments.
The First Amendment states: 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.
-It does not say: 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.
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-It does not say: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by Congress.
States maintained religions for many years after the country was established(and it seems most were removed by the states themselves). States attempted to restrict the Second Amendment a few times, and those attempts were struck down.
That said, I certainly prefer to see the First Amendment interpreted as applying to the states, as interpreting it as only applying to the federal government is sure to cause problems(such as states deciding they have the right to further restrict firearms).
I also agree with those who don’t want their children being forced to pray(I also would not want any public school teacher I have met leading my children in prayer).[/quote]
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights has been the cause of some controversy around here, but the short version is that all or most of the BOR is understood to apply to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m not a Constitutional scholar(or a scholar of any kind), but there appear to be some differences between the First and Second Amendments.
The First Amendment states: 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.
-It does not say: 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.
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-It does not say: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by Congress.
States maintained religions for many years after the country was established(and it seems most were removed by the states themselves). States attempted to restrict the Second Amendment a few times, and those attempts were struck down.
That said, I certainly prefer to see the First Amendment interpreted as applying to the states, as interpreting it as only applying to the federal government is sure to cause problems(such as states deciding they have the right to further restrict firearms).
I also agree with those who don’t want their children being forced to pray(I also would not want any public school teacher I have met leading my children in prayer).[/quote]
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights has been the cause of some controversy around here, but the short version is that all or most of the BOR is understood to apply to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth.[/quote]
Thanks. Like I said, I’m glad it’s interpreted that way.
“The House of Delegates voted Wednesday to give Maryland one of the toughest gun laws in the nation, passing a bill that would ban the sale of assault-type weapons, set a 10-bullet limit on magazines and require fingerprints and a license to buy a handgun.”
-Any thoughts on what state I should move to?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“The House of Delegates voted Wednesday to give Maryland one of the toughest gun laws in the nation, passing a bill that would ban the sale of assault-type weapons, set a 10-bullet limit on magazines and require fingerprints and a license to buy a handgun.”[/quote]
This is an opportunity! In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
It’s not a ‘winnowing’ of your Rights, it’s a government-imposed market stratification: a magazine ban just means we’ll have to rely on drums, belts, and hoppers. Based on the ‘hype’ around dual-tube shotguns, I can only assume the dual-magazine rifle and belt-fed handgun market would be no less than insane.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“The House of Delegates voted Wednesday to give Maryland one of the toughest gun laws in the nation, passing a bill that would ban the sale of assault-type weapons, set a 10-bullet limit on magazines and require fingerprints and a license to buy a handgun.”[/quote]
This is an opportunity! In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
It’s not a ‘winnowing’ of your Rights, it’s a government-imposed market stratification: a magazine ban just means we’ll have to rely on drums, belts, and hoppers. Based on the ‘hype’ around dual-tube shotguns, I can only assume the dual-magazine rifle and belt-fed handgun market would be no less than insane.
[/quote]
WHEN it’s signed into law I’d rather see the SCOTUS strike it down. But we’ll see…
Jobless Claims Rise…
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose to its highest level in four months last week, suggesting the labor market recovery lost some steam in March.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 28,000 to a seasonally adjusted 385,000, the highest level since November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
Obama makes sexist remark about CA Attorney General Kamala Harris…
Michelle Obama calls herself a busy single mother…