It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: captaintyinknots
after 26 bloody pages, you'd think SOMEONE with access to "the button" would have stumbled upon this thread....
i doubt anyone's really willing to report the thread, because they know if they do, a LOT of their posts are going to get zapped straight to hell...
and if i'm honest, even the people i disagree with in this thread, don't deserve to have their words erased...a lot of work, and thought went into our posts, and we've all made passionate arguments...i'd hate to see all that swept away..
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews
i dunno man....you're a bit of an oddity here....
i absolutely HATE your "lefty-liberal" politics, but we seem to agree on certain issues of social justice, and we can have an intelligent conversation about religion without resorting to the usual "you're a godless heathen" crap, that so often happens...
it's somewhat rare that i can be actively fighting someone in another thread, and then agreeing with, and supporting them in another...
it just goes to show, more often than not, people are not absolutes...
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews
indeed, it does set a precedent, and not a good one, in my opinion.
on the one hand, it IS unconstitutional, because the federal government isn't suppose to make any laws with regard to the practice, observance, or choice of religion..which is what they've done...it opens the door for further protected commingling of religion and governmental function...first is prayer before sessions, next, laws, based upon religious preference...of course, the supreme court will most likely strike any such law down, as unconstitutional, as such laws would imply the adoption of an official religion, but then this will appear quite hypocritical, and double-standard-ish..
on the other hand, and think this is the issue no one's touched upon yet, this is a local matter, and shouldn't have even been touched by the supreme court..
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus
Well, I agree with you. You should know that. I am more of an originalist myself.
BUT we have to make room for all in a sense. Our constitutions own framers were divided on the issue. IMO that makes for healthy progress with little to no stagnation.
Besides societal decay, our legal system is going strong. That says something.
Its a good day when we dont all agree......
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews
that's the thing though...it's not fear....it's a feeling of impropriety....kinda like wearing a speedo to a school board meeting....it's just not something that belongs in that setting...
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: rickynews
it's not JUST a prayer...it's a representation of religion, and all it stands for...it's a declaration of adherence to religious teachings...it should be nowhere near government functions...pray in church, and in your homes, but not at government functions..
maybe the speedo was a bit much, but it was really the only thing i could think of at the time, that would give the desired representation of "clash"....