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: 35
113
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


"But we are not talking about a child, or a child in school. We are talking about a primarily adult audience at a function separate from school. The children in attendance, presumably, were with their parents. If they weren't, then perhaps those parents have given up some of the parental control."

This is a ridiculous statement. It doesn't matter one bit if the child is with the parents or not because a high school football game is absolutely the same thing as school. It's state sponsored just like class. Same thing if it were a state sponsored debate, dance, PTA meeting, track meet, or anything sponsored by the school with our tax dollars.

You still just don't get it do you. The STATE CAN NOT BE BIASED. The state can not have the same rights as it's people. It must be unbiased so the people CAN be biased and equal. When someone is acting as the state, they are no longer an individual, they are the STATE. While an individual of the state is acting AS THE STATE they can not have the same rights as they get as an individual. PEOPLE ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY BY A BIASED STATE.

If you wish for a biased state then God help you and if your wish comes true then God help all of us.






[edit on 28-5-2010 by Reflection]




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by Reflection
 


The state is the government. The government is the people. People have beliefs no matter what part of the government they work for, and the Constitution states that they can't be limited on their expression of that belief.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



[edit on 5/28/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


"But we are not talking about a child, or a child in school. We are talking about a primarily adult audience at a function separate from school. The children in attendance, presumably, were with their parents. If they weren't, then perhaps those parents have given up some of the parental control."

This is a ridiculous statement. It doesn't matter one bit if the child is with the parents or not because a high school football game is absolutely the same thing as school. It's state sponsored just like class. Same thing if it were a state sponsored debate, dance, PTA meeting, track meet, or anything sponsored by the school with our tax dollars.

You still just don't get it do you. The STATE CAN NOT BE BIASED. The state can not have the same rights as it's people. It must be unbiased so the people CAN be biased and equal. When someone is acting as the state, they are no longer an individual, they are the STATE. While an individual of the state is acting AS THE STATE they can not have the same rights as they get as an individual. PEOPLE ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY BY A BIASED STATE.

If you wish for a biased state then God help you and if your wish comes true then God help all of us.






[edit on 28-5-2010 by Reflection]


*sigh*...i will reiterate:

Your tax dollars do not support football. It is a "for profit" enterprise undertaken by the school. The ticket sales not only pay for football, it also pays for the other sports programs.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


That is why when you work for the state you have to put your bias aside while you are the state. The whole integrity of an equal state breaks down when the individuals of the state, while representing the state, practice or express their bias. Judges do this ALL THE TIME....or at least most of the time anyway.

If someone representing the state, in all of its forms, can not handle this, then they should not be working for the state. They are free to work for themselves or a private organization.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


Of course, I don't have to respond to each and every sentence you wrote since Bigfatfurrytexan has quoted you on all that really matters. You absolutely believe that certain people should have to give up their rights. It is astounding to me that I am the first to call you a tyrant. I'll tell you this, I am certainly not opposed to the Establishment Clause. I am certainly not opposed to the rule of law, and I for damn sure am not opposed to inalienable rights. I am absolutely opposed to those who argue for, and especially anyone who attempts to squash those rights, regardless of what name they do it in.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Any function that is sponsored by the school should have to follow the same rules that the classroom follows. You're telling me that the rules of the classroom shouldn't apply their own football game or school sponsored activity.

"Ok kids, your free to go to class protected by the separation of church and state, but any other school sponsored events that you love so much, you don't get the same protection."

Give me a break! That's weak!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Reply to post by Reflection
 


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What part of that do you not understand? Why do you ignore the part after the comma?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


What is weak is that you consistently rely upon rhetoric and pretend it is law. Jefferson's quote, which is actually; "the wall of separation between church and state" is not law. If every word Jefferson ever wrote was law then "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.", would be taken far more seriously than it is. You can cherry pick Jefferson quotes all you want, you are not citing law, merely your opinion, and as all tyrants do, you are certain your whimsical nature is all that is necessary to demand others give up their rights.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


How in the world can you call me a tyrant if I am wanting the rights of the PEOPLE to be protected??? This is just ludicrous!

The STATE can not have the same rights as the people because the state must remain UNBIASED. Yes, the state is made of individuals, but those individuals must give up being an individual when they are acting as the STATE. We can't have robots running the state, now can we?

You have to choices:

A BIASED state with UNBIASED citizens...Like the Taliban or Hitler's Germany

or

An UNBIASED state with BIASED citizens. Like the U.S. and other countries where all men are created equal and given the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Any function that is sponsored by the school should have to follow the same rules that the classroom follows. You're telling me that the rules of the classroom shouldn't apply their own football game or school sponsored activity.


Yep. If they did apply, then the entire team would end up in detention for horseplay.




"Ok kids, your free to go to class protected by the separation of church and state, but any other school sponsored events that you love so much, you don't get the same protection."

Give me a break! That's weak!


How about, "Our schools will not teach bible studies during class, but outside of school hours free people remain free."



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


How in the world can you call me a tyrant if I am wanting the rights of the PEOPLE to be protected??? This is just ludicrous!


Because the law you keep referring to states:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


But you are only paying attention to half of the law. Read it. Think for yourself, not what you have been taught time and time again by people who want to think for you.

Why has the second half of that sentence been ignored? And why would you continue to support it?



The STATE can not have the same rights as the people because the state must remain UNBIASED. Yes, the state is made of individuals, but those individuals must give up being an individual when they are acting as the STATE. We can't have robots running the state, now can we?


So, to accept employment, they must give up their rights?

Isn't that called "slavery" or "indentured servitude"?



You have to choices:

A BIASED state with UNBIASED citizens...Like the Taliban or Hitler's Germany

or

An UNBIASED state with BIASED citizens. Like the U.S. and other countries where all men are created equal and given the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



Or, a third choice:

A nation that follows the founding principles of our nation, whereby we are each allowed our freedom and liberty by being tolerant of others.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


What is ridiculous is that you think that by writing that some people absolutely have to forfeit their rights is somehow a protection of the rights of the people. What is absurd is that you think quoting an obscure passage from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote is law. What is pathetic is that you ignore all that is biased about the state and remain willfully blinded by your hatred for a single religion. What is nonsensical is that you utter mystical incantations such as an individual who works for the state must give up being an individual, and then actually state that we can't have robots running the state. What is amusing is that you offer two choices of what sort of state people can have. I am more and more convinced you were educated in a public school.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


When I refer to the separation of church and state as a law, I mean it as a regulation in place for people representing the state. Like a public school teacher, police officer, judge, etc.

These "laws" are in place in most states already, like the one in Tennessee from the op. If they break this "law' then they will be fired. No one is going to prison. They should be fired and free to work privately or for a private organization with all of their individual rights intact.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

i couldnt possibly disagree with you more. how is it that you have no respect for the power of words and ideas? in my conceptualization of reality, words and ideas are the ONLY source of true power. so, first off: let us not downplay them as "MERE words".


Did you just aim a loaded word at me? Should I call the thought police to effect an arrest for assault?

No, friend, words are just tools, vehicles for the transport of ideas. Those who can be injured by flying words have a weak constitution indeed! What it appears you REALLY mean here is the notion that 'ideas are dangerous'. There have been several characters throughout history who have shared that philosophy of the danger of ideas, and so have instituted control over the free flow of thought, ideas, and yes, words. It generally turned out poorly for large numbers of those whom they thereby controlled.



the mistake that was made by the principal in the OP has been repeated over and over again in this thread, including by yourself high up on your pedestal. its pretty simple really. but i will not bore you with the long explanation.

suffice to say that in the strata of ideas, GOD is pretty high up there. in fact, many people would say that by taking a certain position on the reality of god, you can inform all of the lower-strata ideas such as condoms and homosexuality and all the other things that the principal commented on.

whereas, each of the lower-strata ideas are able to co-exist independently without conflict.


How kind of you to permit these 'lower-strata' ideas! The same was done by the individuals I mentioned above. They allowed 'lower-level' ideas among the masses in order to keep them busy, preoccupied with nonsense, so that they had a harder time rising to the higher-level ideas. They kept their people 'safe' by keeping them from thinking too deeply. Those who broke through and reached for higher level ideas, well, they generally met with a bad end. Even as far back as the days of Rome, this philosophy of keeping the masses preoccupied, and away from those dangerous higher-level ideas, was spoken of as 'bread and circuses'.

That didn't work out all that well for them, either.



do you see? the idea of GOD is quite a bossy one. it is a very very BIG idea that likes to push other ideas around and tell them what to do.


Isn't the suppression of speech, one strong enough to squelch even such a BIG ideas as god, isn't that an even BIGGER idea? How else could it push the idea of god around? Are you really trying to tell me that isn't 'bossy', but the necessarily littler idea of god IS?

Besides, I though we'd already established that higher level, 'big' ideas, are dangerous, and so a BAD thing? Doesn't that make the censorship you propose even 'BADDER'?



such a BIG idea as god is not at all the same as a somewhat smaller idea such as political affiliation. to suggest that these are the same is laughable and i honestly have a hard time understanding your position.


I've seen people killed over both sorts of ideas, and have a hard time trivializing the death of one, because it was for a 'smaller' idea, such as politics, over sensationalizing the death of another, because it was over a 'bigger' idea such as religion. I just don't see the dichotomy in 'level' you are asserting. I see them as essentially on a par, and evidently the founders did as well. I submit that THAT is the very reason both were specifically protected in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

Since censorship is the 'biggest' idea, in that it can push all the others around, implementation will necessarily reach a point of bloodshed as well. People will not be silenced forever. I find it irrational that people really seem to want that for their country. Maybe they've just never had to pick up the body parts, and really can't conceive of it.

That's probably the same folks who get bruised by flying words. Wonder how that's gonna work out for them when it's flying steel instead? The founders KNEW. They had just seen the flying steel. That's probably why they instituted the necessary reforms in government to obviate the necessity for flying steel.

Some folks never learn from history, yet the wheel keeps turning...



BIG ideas are immediately suspect, particularly in the concerns of conspiracy theorists and founders of civilised society. and as such, BIG ideas need to be appropriately handled in the interest of the progress of society as a whole.




Yes, suspect indeed! The philosophy that 'ideas are dangerous' has been shared by many people. In the 20th century alone, and just to name a few, there was Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.... the list goes on. It appears that this philosophy was not limited to just the right or the left. The common thread that ties them ALL together is an abject need for control of the masses, which they did by censoring 'big' ideas, and allowing 'little' ideas, in order to give the masses the illusion of freedom. That didn't work out all that well for most of them in the end.

If that's your idea of a 'civilized' society, you can have it. I'm quite content to go feral rather than live under such 'civilization'. "It's for civilization"... "It's for the good of society"... "It's for the children"... yeah, I've heard all the excuses applied by control freaks. What they all boil down to is fear. Personal fear. Fear of ideas, fear of words. Those seem to be irrational fears to me. I have yet to get bruised or punctured by a word.

One last thought: can you tell me how much ideas were subject to censorship during the greatest advances society has made? "Progress" of society is, I believe, the term you used.

You really think censorship and restriction of ideas advances society?


[edit on 2010/5/28 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 





When I refer to the separation of church and state as a law, I mean it as a regulation in place for people representing the state. Like a public school teacher, police officer, judge, etc.


You have no idea what you are referring to and most likely didn't know before entering this thread that the phrase separation of church and state was from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. You arbitrarily, just as tyrants do, rely solely upon the "regulation" of an inalienable right to freely worship, but have nary a word to say about a police officers license to kill, about a judges license to use coercive detainment arbitrarily so, and your usage of etc, only shows how little respect you have for the letter of the law.




These "laws" are in place in most states already, like the one in Tennessee from the op. If they break this "law' then they will be fired. No one is going to prison. They should be fired and free to work privately or for a private organization with all of their individual rights intact.


I have now twice posted links to the Tennessee Constitution, and quoted parts of that Constitution. Maybe they didn't teach you this in public school, but a state Constitution is law. Your tyranny is no more benign because you simply want people you disagree with fired, and let's be clear here, you are not citing any law, which is why you felt compelled to place quotation marks around the word, which should give a clue to the actual respect you have for due process of law.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11



Now, keeping that in mind, if religious convictions can be suppressed and subjugated, what can't? Are political views immune? Are opinions of ANY sort immune?


Whoa...Now you have gone into bizzaro world.

Religious views have NOT been "Subjugated" or "Censored".


What is it YOU call it then, when the free expression of views is disallowed?



You seem bright...


Thanks for that. I think that's the reason my dear old dad used to call me 'sun'...



are you just pretending to be unaware of "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Religion"? ...


I am aware of the lip service paid to the CONCEPTS of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. I am also aware of the concerted efforts to corral and suppress expression of the REALITY of the same.

Restrictions are restrictions. They seem to be at odds with the concept of 'freedom'.



Our government and courts fiercly protect our freedoms in this regard.


They appear to, as long as those "freedoms" are expressed solely withing the State-designated zones. Yes, I have problems with restrictions such as that, when no one is being physically harmed. I can't help it if delicate feelings are bruised. There is no constitutional protection for bruised 'feelings' cause by free expression of ideas.



Thus Mosks in the US and even the Church of Satan...thus KKK Rallies etc. THAT IS HOW STRONGLY USA FEELS IT NEEDS TO PROTECT THOSE FREEDOMS.


Again, protection is afforded if they remain within their free-speech zones. People seem not to understand that I'm not just defending the rights of christians to speak, I'm defending the rights of all you mention to speak freely, wherever they think proper.



Supressed? How? Try this...

Are folks allowed to have racist views in the USA? Yes...protected


For now. I note a rising sentiment to suppress such as a 'hate crime'. The same appelation is gaining wider application. Now, I hear many different forms of speech being called 'hate crime', when in fact it isn't... yet. It appears an effort is underway to redefine much loathesome speech as a 'hate crime'. One must ask, however, just where the definition of 'loathesome' stops, and redefinition of 'hate crime' begins... and how far we allow the bar to be moved .



If that principle had gotten on the loud speaker at the school football game and gone on a racist rant and screamed kill the *&%^%s over and over...would you still feel what he did was permissable? If so, why or why not?


Permissible, yes. Wise, probably not. But then that would have been HIS lookout. We all have to live with the results of our actions, and that includes the action of our tongues. I just don't think those results should be mandated by the law, if speech is supposed to be free and protected.



BUT...you are not being "SUPRESSED" or having your views "SUBJUGATED" if someone says you can't as a figure of authority get on a loud speaker on school grounds and advocate your religious views...whether they be Christian, Muslim, Satanic etc.


I'm having a hard time seeing how restriction is not suppression. Some things absolutely NEED to be restricted and suppressed. I just don't think that list of things should include those things that are alleged to be 'protected'. Contrarily, I'm of the opinion that things which actually NEED to be restricted are already restricted by law, not alleged to be 'protected'.



Simply because you weren't able to espouse your personal religious views over a loud speaker to a captive audience who came to see a football game on public grounds...does not mean yoru views are being "supressed". You can still have them...you can still express them...just don't use your profesional capacity as a opublic school teacher to evangalize to parents and students .


So then, are you saying here that in your estimation, the problem was not the venue, but the speaker? That's what I take from 'use your professional capacity as a public school teacher'. Please clarify.

As an aside, I have a son in high school. Every day, he is assailed by ideas I find loathesome in the classroom. A PUBLIC classroom, in a PUBLIC, government-sponsored school. By teachers acting in their professional capacity as public school teachers. Rather than get all manner of bent out of shape, and start calling for teacher's heads, I try to teach him how to critically analyze what he's being fed, and make up his own mind in the matter. Strangely perhaps, I'm grateful for the opportunity these teacher have to spout what to me is outrageous BS, because it affords my son the luxury of having other ideas to consider, and allows him to exercise critical thinking in formulating his own ideas.

Of course, if I were afraid of ideas, I might see it differently.



WE IN THE USA have chosen to reserve the right to teach our children what (if any) God to believe in..."WE THE PEOPLE" TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT RELIGION....NOT THE GOVERNMENT .....THUS NO PUBLIC SCHOOL SHOULD ENGAGE IN SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS PRAYER OR ADVOCACY.


I have reserved the right to teach my children how to think. As individuals, they should be allowed to decide for themselves in matters of thought. They can't really do that when they're not getting all sides of the debate. Schools teach a great many things that have no place there. It's truly odd to me how religion has been singled out to be suppressed, while the others are allowed free rein.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


My friend, I am pleased you were able to see the connection between my use of the word progressive, and your own use of the word progress. I do realize that both the terms progressive and conservative have become modern day pejoratives, but so has the word myth, and it doesn't change the power of the myth in anyway. Double speak is all too often employed in this modern world, and this is why terms such as progressive and conservative have become pejoratives, but to surrender to those who employ double speak and modify our own language doesn't help the matter.

I most certainly was not slinging an insult at you, and I am pleased you understand that now. I was merely taking you to task for relying on progress to justify suppression, no matter how subtle that justification was. I understand that you believe I was being disrespectful to you, but I was not, and if I wanted to be disrespectful to you, I would have ignored you, instead of take up your arguments. I did this out of respect for your arguments, not because I agreed with them, but because I respect you.

As to your sexuality, you are most welcome to identify yourself by your sexuality, and I understand that being in a "minority" that you may feel as if your right to be homosexual is not respected, and of course, there are those tyrants that exist who would insist you have no right to be a homosexual. Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, and from all forms of ideologies. However, I would also argue that you are much more than who you have sex with, and that there is no greater minority than the individual.

Your feelings that people do enjoy tromping all over your right to exist are more than valid feelings and there are people who wish to tromp over your right to exist, and mine, and many others. We are all individuals my friend, and it matters not to me who you have sex with, what matters to me is your right to exist, indeed your inalienable rights all together! Your rights matter to me, because my rights matter to me, and if I have rights then so does everyone else. This is my concern regarding this thread, and for the most part why I spend as much time in this site as I do.

Returning to progressive attitudes, I am all for progress, just not at the expense of anyone's rights. Hence conservatism. I have been a member of the Libertarian party for some time now, not because conservatism has been used as pejorative so often, but because who it has been ascribed to just simply aren't conservatives, unless conserving the status quo is what is meant by the term, but in truth, in the good ol' U.S. of A. if one is not conserving the Constitution, then whatever the hell they are conserving has nothing at all to do with American conservatism. Because progressives have such a tendency to take a liberal view of the Constitution and will all too often ascribe meanings not expressly written, or not even implicitly there, there is a genuine need for people to conserve that Constitution.

I often use this analogy, and I will use it again here; the myth of Icarus tells a tale of he and his father, both imprisoned on an island with no practical means of escape. His father Daedalus fashioned some wings with feathers, wire, and wax, to create that means of which to escape. He learned how to use these wings, and then taught his son Icarus how to use them so they both could escape their prison. Daedalus warned Icarus not to soar too high lest the wax melt from the heat of the sun and cause catastrophe. Icarus was young and liberal in his world view and while wanting to escape his prison, also wanted to soar where eagles dare. He ignored the conservative advice of his father and soon afterward the wax to his wings melted, his wings fell apart and he plummeted to his death.

This is all that conservatives should be concerned with, to warn those who would imprudently progress to greater heights without fully considering the consequences of their actions. While soaring where eagles dare is a noble and valid desire, it is only noble and valid if doing so does not ensure certain destruction. I encourage you to remain a progressive, as progress is necessary, but I also urge you to heed the warnings that conservatives offer, not the posers who call them conservatives while trampling all over another persons rights, but those true conservatives who are simply expressing the value and importance of universal laws that have been with us since time immemorial. Modernity is the natural course of humanity, but such modernization does not in anyway diminish the wisdom of universal truths, regardless of how ancient those truths may be.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ok, let me clear this up. I am well aware that separation of church and state is not a law and it is not in the Constitution of the United States or any one state. However, there is obviously a regulation or stipulation put in place inspired by the idea of the separation of church and state or this principal could have prayed to his Christian God as part of the state's event and expected to keep his job.

If I believed it was an actual law, then I would have said he should be criminally prosecuted, but i didn't say that now did I? I said he should be fired.

You like to nit pick certain things I say that have nothing to do with the bottom line. This is NOT about the first amendment. It's about what the roles of our government should be to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS. Our rights can not possibly be protected if our government is biased towards any particular religion, race or gender.

You can try to call it tyranny all you want, but the truth is, I am advocating the opposite of tyranny. I want the rights of the people to be protected.

A biased state can not protect the equal rights of its people. And one of the crucial elements to an unbiased state is through the separation of church and state. It doesn't matter if it's in the Constitution or not. It's the truth regardless. Bottom line.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


You most certainly do not want the rights of all people to be protected and you have been effectively quoted as admitting this. You most certainly advocate that certain people must forfeit their rights, and this is not by any stretch of the imagination protecting the rights of everyone.

Further, you pretend that bias is some sort of crime. You conflate words to mean something other than they mean, and then get prudish about when called on it, calling it "nit picking". You can scream from the top of the mountain, and write as long as you want that you are only attempting to protect the rights of others, it is clear to anyone paying attention this is not true and what you want is to place your own personal bias above others bias, and expect everyone to view this as just. It is not just, it is tyrannical.

You can keep repeating your dogma over and over again for as long as you want. More and more people are becoming more and more immune to propaganda, and the notion that all you have to do is just keep repeating a lie over and over, and it will eventually become the truth is only true for the ignorant, and in this site, there are not that many ignoramus by which to use your propaganda against. You are advocating tyranny, no matter how hard you try to present it, it is clear that you value your own bias over the bias of others. This is, of course, true of all people, but this is why The First Amendment is law and your mere opinions about notions of separation of church and state remain nothing more than opinions. You are entitled to these opinions, just not entitled to impose them on others as a point of law.

Just as I defend that principals rights to speak freely, I defend your rights to do the same, and welcome your continued efforts in this thread to exercise those rights, but I will not relinquish my own rights just so that you can have an easier time of arguing your opinions. I and others have relied upon law in order to support our defense of that principal. We have not done this in order to diminish your own bias, only to ensure that your rights, which are my rights and that principals rights, are understood for what they are...inalienable, which is to say they are non-transferable and can not legally be taken away.



[edit on 28-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I never once advocated that "certain people" should forfeit their rights. I said the STATE should not have the same rights as it's citizens in order to keep an unbiased state to protect our rights. Big difference. The individuals of the state should have all of their rights as INDIVIDUALS, just not as they are acting as the state. In the same way a judge puts his bias aside while deliberating or sentencing. He is human, has bias, but he puts it aside to be objective and DO HIS JOB.

Let me ask you. How can one be treated equally by the state if the state is biased towards a particular religion, race or gender? I'm all ears...



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join