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.

 

warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

page: 29
113
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Reflection
 


BS.

No laws should EVER come before rights. Rights are God given (or you are endowed with them as a human), not government given. No law can ever supercede our rights.

Epic fail.


Tyrant indeed.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Buddhists have no rights then?

Agnostics might have rights, not sure?




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


That is up to your state. Apples and oranges.

And even if you do not have a drivers license, it does not infringe on your right to travel. You may take a taxi, bus, plane, boat, bicycle, horse, or your own two feet.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


That is up to your state. Apples and oranges.

And even if you do not have a drivers license, it does not infringe on your right to travel. You may take a taxi, bus, plane, boat, bicycle, horse, or your own two feet.



You totally missed the point there I take it?

Let me refresh your memory

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by IamBoon
He has a right to state his religious views in any forum EXCEPT LOCAL, STATE , AND FEDERAL funded events.


Please show me where the Constitution says such.


Why does it need to be in the constitution to be so?

I never said anything about my right to travel. Please read. I said that I can lose my license for driving my car without inspection. I never said I could not walk or take a boat. Keep up.

I specifically asked where that is in the constitution because of your statement above.

Why does it need to be in the constitution? Other laws do not need to be so why does this one?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I can guarantee that if I were there I would have brought back a cross and burnt it in the parking lot. Asking people to pray is rediculous. Am I satanic? No.

Do gay people ask hundreds of people over the loudspeakers to commit gay sexual acts? No.


and you likely would have been jailed for burning something on property not belonging to you, violating whatever local ordinances prevent open flames, and federal hate laws.

Now, whether that is right or wrong, i have two question for you:

1. Do you think it would do anything other than make you look like a childish (which, i suspect you are rather young) jerk to the group assembled there.

2. Would you really do that? Or are you just talking a big game?

There is no way to legislate the way the public will feel about something someone has the freedom to say. "Societal law", while not official or penned anywhere, should be all the guide we need.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Reflection
 


BS.

No laws should EVER come before rights. Rights are God given (or you are endowed with them as a human), not government given. No law can ever supercede our rights.

Epic fail.


Tyrant indeed.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Buddhists have no rights then?

Agnostics might have rights, not sure?


The part in parenthesis takes care of that.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
He has a right to state his religious views in any forum EXCEPT LOCAL, STATE , AND FEDERAL funded events.

The constitution is very clear on the separation on church and state for VERY good reasons. It is very important that it stays that way also. If you need to know why just google and read what our founding fathers said about the matter. They know damn well better than any of us what it is like living in a monarchy/ theocracy.


Geez, have you even read the thread? Both of the above have been addressed and you are adding nothing new or worthwhile to the discussion.

It is not funded by the city, state, or school. Football funds itself via ticket sales. If you don't approve, don't buy a ticket.

The constitution IS very clear on the church of separation of church and state. It says nothing about it. What it says is that the government cannot create a religion that is compulsory, and that man has no inhibitions on his right to worship.

Now, the Supreme Court may have misinterpreted the words of the founding fathers, but it was quoted very plainly for all to see what the person who actually penned that portion of the constitution thought about it. His intention was made VERY clear in a letter written to a church.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentBob86
 


I would recommend that you read the post i made previous to this one. The "swoop and poop" technique of ATS usage is not looked upon kindly by the membership at large.

Read the thread, then reformulate your opinion.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Once again. That is a state issue.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

All things not in the Constitution are left to the states.

Nevermind the fact that driving is not a right.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Reflection
 


BS.

No laws should EVER come before rights. Rights are God given (or you are endowed with them as a human), not government given. No law can ever supercede our rights.

Epic fail.


Tyrant indeed.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Buddhists have no rights then?

Agnostics might have rights, not sure?


The part in parenthesis takes care of that.


LOL, so everyone has human rights just for being human but Christians get to say they got theirs from their god? Does that mean your rights are better? More important? Are they different rights? If there is a determination that some people have god granted rights and others only have human granted rights, yet all are human, then surely you can explain the difference to me.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


There is no right to drive. You are travelling on roadways paid by taxpayer money, and maintained by the same. If you want to use these roads, you have to meet the licensing requirements of the group in charge of those roads. If you do not wish to do so, then don't. You can still take a cab or a bus. All they ask is that if you are going to operate on THEIR roads, that you meet their minimal requirements.

Now, you can choose to not drive on their roads, if you want. But that is illegal as you are driving across property not belonging to you. The "right to peaceful assembly" doesn't allow you to drive across someone's lawn.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. But it is VERY constitutional for the owner of property (roads) to be able to dictate how they will be used (license).



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
LOL, so everyone has human rights just for being human but Christians get to say they got theirs from their god? Does that mean your rights are better? More important? Are they different rights? If there is a determination that some people have god granted rights and others only have human granted rights, yet all are human, then surely you can explain the difference to me.


As a deist, i would say you have rights given to you by our Creator. A Christian would say "God". An atheist would say "given to all humans".

It all describes the same thing: inherent rights gained via the act of existing.

You are splitting hairs and erecting a strawman.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Once again. That is a state issue.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

All things not in the Constitution are left to the states.

Nevermind the fact that driving is not a right.


You just do not get it. YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO HANDBASKETS.

Someone made a claim and you insisted it was invalid because it was not in the constitution.

I am asking why it has to be in the constitution to be valid?

Why is this thread so damn hard?????????????


IT IS VERY SIMPLE.

You brought up the constitution as if that is the only law in the land. I am asking why??????? Just because something is not in the constitution does not mean it is not a law. Do you need a different example?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


There is no right to drive. You are travelling on roadways paid by taxpayer money, and maintained by the same. If you want to use these roads, you have to meet the licensing requirements of the group in charge of those roads. If you do not wish to do so, then don't. You can still take a cab or a bus. All they ask is that if you are going to operate on THEIR roads, that you meet their minimal requirements.


Obviously it went over your head as well. I am not talking about rights. I am talking about laws.


Now, you can choose to not drive on their roads, if you want. But that is illegal as you are driving across property not belonging to you. The "right to peaceful assembly" doesn't allow you to drive across someone's lawn.


Dude, seriously. I am not making that argument. I am not sure how you even think I am.


There is nothing unconstitutional about it. But it is VERY constitutional for the owner of property (roads) to be able to dictate how they will be used (license).


WOW DID YOU MISS WHAT I SAID THREE TIMES NOW.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
As a deist, i would say you have rights given to you by our Creator. A Christian would say "God". An atheist would say "given to all humans".

It all describes the same thing: inherent rights gained via the act of existing.

You are splitting hairs and erecting a strawman.


Nope, I am asking someone else to explain to me what they meant by what THEY said. See if you can grasp that.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


*sigh*

The big bad evil government (and don't get me wrong, I don't like the government too much myself) is not taking over everything. With the exception of fire/police there are civilian owned alternatives to *most* everything else.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

LOL, so everyone has human rights just for being human but Christians get to say they got theirs from their god?


Most religions believe in a creator. We are given thise rights by that creator. I say God because I believe He created us.

Those without the belief of a creator obviously have the same rights, though they are not given by anyone because they do not believe anyone created them


Does that mean your rights are better? More important? Are they different rights? If there is a determination that some people have god granted rights and others only have human granted rights, yet all are human, then surely you can explain the difference to me.


What the hell are you on about? Nothing of the sort was ever stated. That is a fallacy in and of itself.

[edit on 5/27/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I can guarantee that if I were there I would have brought back a cross and burnt it in the parking lot. Asking people to pray is rediculous. Am I satanic? No.

Do gay people ask hundreds of people over the loudspeakers to commit gay sexual acts? No.


and you likely would have been jailed for burning something on property not belonging to you, violating whatever local ordinances prevent open flames, and federal hate laws.

Now, whether that is right or wrong, i have two question for you:

1. Do you think it would do anything other than make you look like a childish (which, i suspect you are rather young) jerk to the group assembled there.

2. Would you really do that? Or are you just talking a big game?

There is no way to legislate the way the public will feel about something someone has the freedom to say. "Societal law", while not official or penned anywhere, should be all the guide we need.


1. Maybe. In actuallity I wouldn't have taken such a dread approach to fixing the problem.

2. Mostly talk, HOWEVER, I do have a story.

I have organized students who were against standing and repeating the pledge of allegience because of the "under god" segment, and we all "made a stand" per se by sitting during the pledge. The teachers reacted by trying to send us to the principals office, detentions, even failure to start class until we stood up (which we didn't, so class started up eventually anyways). We knew the law and we continued doing this for weeks and some students were punished that wouldn't stand that were not part of our protest and were acting out of their own accord in other classrooms. Our "protest" spread to other classrooms and eventually me and another was pulled aside by the principal. He told us he is taking our situation to the board of education to see what to do. He told us to stand until he got an answer from them. We didn't (hah). But the following week he came back and let me and the other student that started it know that we were absolutely correct, and every student afterwards had to be told that it was their choice to stand or not.

Not quite burning a cross, but I do take situations like this seriously. I (and others) changed the entire school forever, for the better, by making a stand. I've been graduated for years now by the way, so that story is old news.

I persuaded the students who DID face punishment for sitting to take legal action against the school. They missed classtime that their tax dollars pay for because they were removed from class for following my lead. Unfortunately, they did not want to "stir the pot" after we won, I guess victory was enough for them.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
K

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Once again. That is a state issue.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

All things not in the Constitution are left to the states.

Nevermind the fact that driving is not a right.


You just do not get it. YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES TO HANDBASKETS.

Someone made a claim and you insisted it was invalid because it was not in the constitution.

I am asking why it has to be in the constitution to be valid?

Why is this thread so damn hard?????????????


IT IS VERY SIMPLE.

You brought up the constitution as if that is the only law in the land. I am asking why??????? Just because something is not in the constitution does not mean it is not a law. Do you need a different example?


Are you really that dense?

The rights enumerated in the Constitution can't be infringed upon. Period.

Speech is in There. Driving is not.

Do some research before you spout off.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


No one is missing anything, and if they are the onus is on you to be more effective at communicating.

It seems as though you are equating driving with the constitution. If i am incorrect, please clarify.

Yes, there are laws. The constitution is where they start, and what isn't covered there is left to the states to decide. The basis that people say this principle acted wrongly is the constitution.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Granted, the Constitution does not specifically say there should be separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean we can't learn and progress from a document written in the 18th century. Can't we learn from over 200 years of applying this document?

The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Now, does it specifically say that church and state shall be separate. No, not in so many words, but think about it for a minute. If a public school principal is leading a group in prayer at a state sponsored event, the state is practicing a particular religion. It is a state representative assuming the Christian religion established at a state event. He didn't even wait for a law allowing him to practice his religion as a state rep, he just assumed it. That's even worse.

That's why intelligent people, and most law makers, apply the separation of church and state. With out it, people like this principal will assume their religion as established with in the state. It's potentially dangerous and not one of the roles of the government. I don't care if it's not in the Constitution. It's called learning from our history and progressing. If the state assumes a religion is established with out a law in place to allow for that, then how could anyone have freedom of religion? Separation of church and state is just common sense.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join