Say goodbye 1st Amendment: It's illegal to pray on the grounds of the Supreme Court

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


thanks for obliging with my request...

I your are the only person on here who does not seem to diverge from your logic.
I have seen folks of every stripe duck out of their normal range of considerations
every now and then. I do it all the time, at the same time I make sure to question myself and the validity of my desired concepts, however I can be horribly black and white when I am observing something in the physical world. I am in line with what you are saying; Janky- if they are doing their thing and nobodies getting jerked around, big deal, at least they are with friends living life.

With the gay marriage, I had a battle with a guy who stated pretty much what you stated. But in his case it seemed as if he was using the government and its involvement as a prop to object. However I detected that he had personal objections and needed a
cover story. What his position did functionally, was to make it an un-resolvable issue,
objection based upon something that is likely gonna be around in some form/ the current social, spiritual and legal realms of marriage as a whole. But with you I see no deviation or charade, I guess it wouldn't change the argument though. That was a hell of a slog with that member, I suggested he advocate for the destruction of the current
concept and connotations of marriage to serve as a small but definitive blow against government. He was unwilling to attack or target marriage which really made his argument appear suspect. Provided you don't mind homosexual marriage

the issue it is either augmentation of the gay people or diminishment of the entire institution as it is currently composed.

Personally, my first goal would be achieve the objective of equity, which would not require a completely separate battle, ending the government scope,
its agencies, then laws, then taxes, etc... Thats an epic task to solve a simple objective
IMO, I believe objectively so... I wonder for the time being could a gay be afforded the greater consideration because they are being impacted currently? Live and let live in the conceptual sense, regardless of monumental obstructions which would provide the vehicle to achieve the desirable method of resolution to this concern.

I could find a small justification to state that the State serves as as the barrier in argument and in existence, conceptual and physical. Your closeness to what I describe
might obscure this interesting conundrum. It is almost impossible to see the way the
aforementioned interlock, where, how, cause and effect . What ever I am trying to convey it is right at the horizon of my intellect, almost past my grasp, I could not formulate the relationships scientifically , but I can tell there a very complex terrain over yonder. All regarding the function and execution which would lead to what gay people would consider "marriage". I can say one solution appears additive and the other subtractive. Opposites intended to meet the same objective...

Its funny to see where you and I diverge, its at the point of how to produce the desired result, this very small (small in one sense) yet Epic (in another) will almost ensure results are never achieved. This appears to be the result, maintain status quo, as a byproduct of attacking status quo. Both arguments are hinged this way, but with different fulcrums. Hell I see these dualities EVERYWHERE in political arguments,
they can get so fricking subtle and complex though.




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I thought you were quitting ATS, dang, can't you live up to any promise?


Anywho, it doesn't matter what the religion is, the point is, that it's inappropriate to practice religious rites on the steps of the SC.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Are you sober?


Are you Christian? Seems like a lot of angry judgment here so.

Your arguments have degenerated into non sequitors. I quoted Ecclesiastics based on this remark you made:


Are you sober? I have done nothing but ask questions. I have made no argument. I have only asked questions. Why does that confuse you so much?




Then you turn around and claim:


That I do not need your bible quote. This is about America and people praying, right? What good is quoting the bible? Unless that bible quote is in our laws somewhere, it seem pointless and unless you are only worrying about the right of Christians to pray, the bible seems pretty pointless. Yes, I told you I have enough bibles because a quote from the bible is not going to move anything along with me in regard to this.




You disingenuously ask where anyone has been stopped from praying as if you haven't even read this thread.


Disingenuously? Do you kiss your bible with that judgment? I asked for a pretty good reason. The last time I checked, it did not need to be outwardly visible that you are praying to the Christian god. So how did anyone know who was praying and who was not in order to target people JUST FOR PRAYING?

You seem really angry for a Christian. You keep telling me I am missing things and can not read. Is that because you got so rude about me talking about the constitution and I pointed out that I never once mentioned it? Does that pull a certain personal string? Try being nice for just a little.

I still see no proof anyone was being stopped from praying. I see a group of people being asked to stop blocking and being disruptive. Can you show me one person who was also prevented from having a personal conversation with their god without making a public spectacle of it?


You make incoherent statements such as this:


That statement makes plenty of sense. I apologize if it was a bit over your head.


Apparently thinking it is original thought. Incoherency is not original thought.


Of course, there is no chance you are just having trouble understanding English?



You jumped in right after I suggested Fort Anthem and I go to the Supreme Court and stand on the steps and pray in order to put this law to the test. People stand on the steps of the Supreme Court all the time and do not violate any fire codes. Have you seen the steps to The Supreme Court?


So you are still looking for a way to justify giving Jesus the back of your hand in order to test a man made law? I am sure you will be rewarded in kind.



Again, you are either ignoring other posts I have made in order to now play this game of disingenuous, or you just haven't read them.


Actually, from this very post here I would most certainly have to guess you just do not read English well and have missed all of that. Oh well, have fun defying Jesus to prove you have the right to defy Jesus. Maybe he will explain that to you when you meet up.


I have all ready said that the letter is nothing more than hearsay. In fact, I took those Christians to task and openly called them betrayers of Christ by acquiescing to that LEO's demands. If you can not bother to read what I have said, this is your problem. Pretending I said what I did not say will get you nowhere.


If my simple questions confuse and anger you so much, I would suggest your god and your prayers to him are not the problems you should be so concentrated on right now.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Would any of you complain if a group of 100 muslims pulled out prayer rugs and prayed on the court steps? Or perhaps a group of Moonies dancing around ringing bells and burning incense?
I think most people have double standards where what they do is ok but other groups shouldn't be allowed to do.
As Getreadyallready pointed out they weren't given a citation for prayer but for assembling in an area where it is prohibited.
Nevermind that the prohibitions were put in place to keep swarms of anti-abortion protesters from blocking access to the Supreme court building.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The funny thing about complexity is that I believe it is a creation made by us. The universe may seem to be complex to some people, but I suspect that the universe is really very simple, and whatever complexities we perceive are simply just those things we don't understand. The same with the human genome. It may seem complex, but I suspect it is really very simple, and whatever complexities we perceive is that which we do not understand.

I often find that finding answers to problems are best found by simplifying the complexity of the problem. Break down that problem to its simplest terms. In terms of gay marriage, it seems to me the problem is licensing schemes. In fairness to government, it appears that licensing schemes existed before The United States did regarding marriage, and it appears that George Washington had a license to marry Martha. Some one once told me that the history of licensing schemes began with masignation, (sp), of which I have tried to research, but either I am remembering the term incorrectly, or he was full of it.

As he claimed masignation was the crime of marrying a slave. It was illegal to marry your slave, but slave owners began lobbying for licenses to marry, and this is how the whole licensing scheme began. In searching for this on the internet, I have never been able to corroborate this story, but this is how I learned that George Washington had a license to marry Martha, so the whole masignation claim seems to be a crock of...

Regardless of the history of the marriage licensing scheme, under our Constitution, it is dubious that such as scheme is legally viable. It is arguable that marriage is a right, and protected under the 9th Amendment which extends to each state since the passage of the 14th Amendment. Marriage does not cause any demonstrable harm, even if spousal abuse exists, it is not demonstrably so because of marriage itself.

The whole argument that marriage is solely a covenant between man and woman is not supported by the etymology of the word, which is from the Latin word maritatus, or maritatre, which means to wed, marry, or to give in marriage. To wed means to pledge, or make a covenant, and is an Old English word that comes from a Germanic origin of wadjojanan, or a derivation of that which is; wadh, and this seems to be rooted in the Latin version, which is vas, or vadis, which means bond, or security. No where in this etymology is there a distinction made about a man and a woman and having children.

Subjectively speaking, the only reason I want to marry is for the purpose of having and raising children with my soul mate. I would like to think that this family planning would be done the old fashioned way with some good old fashioned sex, and my wife gets pregnant from my sperm. However, not all men can impregnate a woman, and some have to rely on other means in order to have a family. Conversely, not all woman can be impregnated, and then adoption becomes about the only viable option, failing any new technology that would accommodate that. My point with this, is that this standard view that marriage means the bond between a man and a woman for the purposes of propagation gets muddied up quite a bit, when fertility therapies and adoptions are brought into the mix.

Should gay people be allowed to adopt? Well, they are now, and ironically are allowed to adopt, but not allowed to be married. How stupid is that? Subjectively speaking, I am not so sure how good it is for a child to be deprived of a maternal, or paternal influence, and under gay parents, it is arguable such a deprivation would exist. Objectively speaking, divorce is quite common in these modern times, and too often a child borne of heterosexual parents winds up being deprived of either a paternal, or maternal influence. There is also the matter of widows and widowers.

Subjectively speaking, I get uncomfortable with "gay issues" and would rather not have to think about people in that way. I do not care if Tom Cruise is "really gay" or not, and would prefer to not have to think about him in this way when watching Mission Impossible. I do not know why I should have to identify with myself by my heterosexuality, and I do not understand why gay people identify with homosexuality. Then again, I don't wake up every day and think to myself; "Hey! I'm white!" and don't understand why African-Americans should have to wake up every day and think to themselves; "Hey! I'm black."

Further, this whole gay issue has brought about some wacky political correctness, and I all too often hear someone who enters the discussion of "gay issues" open with the qualification; "As a proud parent of a gay son", or "As the proud parent of a gay daughter", and every time I hear this I find the language of that kind of odd. Do they mean by proud parent of a gay son that they raised their son to be gay, and are proud to say he is what they raised him to be? Of course not! What they mean is, my son is gay, and I am just as proud of him as I would be if he were not gay. I suppose it is easier to say "As a proud parent of a gay son", but it begs the question.

Honestly Janky, I get uncomfortable when heterosexual men feel compelled to share their exploits with women. I do not want to have to hear this stuff. I mean, I suppose every now and then it is fine, but as a standard point of discussion, I find it puerile and limiting. This holds equally true with homosexual men who feel compelled to talk, (incessantly if you ask me), about their sexual escapades. I am a little more tolerant of girl on girl stories, but...well...never mind.

Regardless of my own prudish nature, the right to marry seems to be a fundamental right between two people, or even if your Mormon, I would suggest that this religious belief trumps any law that say's polygamy is illegal. Although, since it is the religious belief that trumps polygamy laws, I would think here is where a licensing scheme becomes appropriate, but to license a bond between two people, regardless of their gender? I just don't see that as having any legal validity. People have the right to contract. A marriage is just that, a contract. I think it is a sacred contract, but this is my estimation of marriage, and based on the etymology of the word, objectively speaking, marriage does not necessarily have to be sacred, and could be just a business arrangement. Indeed, throughout history arranged marriages seem to be more of a business nature, than of a sacred bond between two people. Ironically, arranged marriages seem to have lower divorce rates than "sacred bonds", so what do I know?

In terms of complex problems being broken down to their simplest parts, if the government would just butt the hell out of marriage, then this whole issue of gay people getting married is moot. I mean, there are always people who will voice their opinions on the matter, and those who don't like the idea will say so, but they couldn't spend millions of dollars on political campaigns just to prevent it. Also, on a purely health related issue, and speaking to the general welfare of the state or nation, in the advent of AIDS, it seems to me, that gay people getting married is a damn good idea, and one would hope that this marriage encourages some fidelity, and that the sex they have is under carnal knowledge. This would be best for the nation, or state. But...what the hell do I know?

Separation of church and state? Try to find a church that will marry you without you first obtaining a license from the city in which you marry. How the hell is that a separation of church and state? Of course, there is no Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state, and this is what makes 501c3's legal. Separation of church and state my ass! You sure as hell won't hear Wukky bemoaning the cozy relationship between church and state when it comes to the IRS, or licensing schemes, I'll tell you that much.

I want us all to be free, and to accept responsibility for our own actions, and if we all did this, then what need would we really have for government? Very little and this would surely allow for the limited government I am constantly advocating. I do not think I am asking too much that we all accept responsibility for our own actions, unless, of course, it is my turn to do the dishes, or make my bed, or put the toilet seat down...Sigh. A true warrior poet accepts full responsibility for their actions, even when it comes to putting the toilet seat down, because in my world, the only real authority comes from the woman I love. If this would be the same in a gay marriage, then what the hell is wrong with that?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Nevermind that the prohibitions were put in place to keep swarms of anti-abortion protesters from blocking access to the Supreme court building.


You mean to say that there are rules in place simply because some groups of religious types could not keep their religion private or behave properly in public? One religion ruined it for everyone? Tsk tsk. I wonder what religion abortion protesters usually are?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Where is the next place YOU are going to decide WHERE free speech is going to be decided to be allowed?

The White House? The Congress?

Sounds kind of slippery slope to me. Maybe that is just the protector of liberty and freedom in me of course.

Now, you might be one of those types that think that freedom and liberty belong in a utopia. I wonder, does NOT the utopia belong in ones self? Or are we to leave our choice or individuality at the door to this utopia?

Tell me purveyor of rights, where EXACTLY does the rights of mine deviate or are allowed? Is it NOT when they restrict yours? Or infringe on yours?

Or are you coming up with NEW and IMPROVED observations of the Constitution? ALL laws are based on the Constitution mister tweety bird. Until you and someone ELSE kills the Constitution, I and EVERYONE else will speak their mind WHEREVER they want!



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by whatukno
 


Where is the next place YOU are going to decide WHERE free speech is going to be decided to be allowed?


I just want to answer by saying 'everywhere.'


The White House? The Congress?

Sounds kind of slippery slope to me. Maybe that is just the protector of liberty and freedom in me of course.


The sad truth is you do not actually have the right to say anything you want, any place you want, any time you want. You can go into congress or the white house and threaten to kill anyone. You can not go to those places and libel anyone. You will most certainly be silenced were you to use the White House as a stage for any profanity laced diatribe of hatred, even if it were of Corn Flakes. There is a time and a place for everything and apparently the Supreme Court building is not the place to gather in a group and have your personal time with the lord.

You have the right to assemble as well as speak out, correct? But you do not have the right to assemble in any numbers you see fit in any place you wish to. Society is full of rules. If you can find one that functions better without any, I am all ears.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


My rights have ALWAYS been defined by the limits of yours. Where if my right to do something infringed on your rights to do something.

NOW, we have the government and their sychophants saying that if I say that; GOD is the ALMIGHTY and you and I are just pawns in the everlasting game of life. OH MY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE! I have to be arrested because I infringed on your sensible ears and have denigrated your sensibilities.

WHICH IS TOTAL IDIOCY. Sorry to those folks that think that using the DEVIL INCARNATE Muslims will sway me. Sorry, the Muslims can preach upon others all they want. The INSTANT that our government allows THEM to enforce their will upon me, is the INSTANT that government does not exist.

You CANNOT allow a government to enforce their will upon you by their LACK of enforcement of TRUE LAW.

If I harm another or infringe upon their rights is when I have broken the law. Nothing more, nothing less. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD DO UNTO THEM!



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


My rights have ALWAYS been defined by the limits of yours. Where if my right to do something infringed on your rights to do something.

NOW, we have the government and their sychophants saying that if I say that; GOD is the ALMIGHTY and you and I are just pawns in the everlasting game of life. OH MY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE! I have to be arrested because I infringed on your sensible ears and have denigrated your sensibilities.


Hyperbole much? When was anyone arrested for simply stating what you just did? When did any such thing happen in this story? If you are going to get upset over scenarios you have to make up, is there really a problem?


WHICH IS TOTAL IDIOCY. Sorry to those folks that think that using the DEVIL INCARNATE Muslims will sway me.


Oh, so you are one of those types.


Sorry, the Muslims can preach upon others all they want. The INSTANT that our government allows THEM to enforce their will upon me, is the INSTANT that government does not exist.

You CANNOT allow a government to enforce their will upon you by their LACK of enforcement of TRUE LAW.

If I harm another or infringe upon their rights is when I have broken the law. Nothing more, nothing less. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD DO UNTO THEM!


Blah blah Muslim devils blah blah. Ok, thanks for stopping by.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 





Are you Christian? Seems like a lot of angry judgment here so.


Uh-huh. I asked if you were sober due to your problem with constructing coherent thoughts. Your questions seems to be rooted in angry judgment, my judgment was academic.




Are you sober? I have done nothing but ask questions. I have made no argument. I have only asked questions. Why does that confuse you so much?


Uh-huh. Who do you think you're kidding? Loaded questions are more than just questions. If you ask a man if he is still beating his wife, you are not just merely asking a question. When you ask:




So, you want to defy Jesus to make the point that you have the legal right to defy Jesus?


You are doing more than just simply asking a question. Playing innocent doesn't make a person innocent. Disingenuous sincerity does not make a person sincere, and people who are confused may fall for that crap, but people who are not confused see that crap for what it is, crap.




That I do not need your bible quote. This is about America and people praying, right? What good is quoting the bible? Unless that bible quote is in our laws somewhere, it seem pointless and unless you are only worrying about the right of Christians to pray, the bible seems pretty pointless. Yes, I told you I have enough bibles because a quote from the bible is not going to move anything along with me in regard to this.


Again with the disingenuousness. Had you not used the word us in this statement:




You are telling me that you understand Jesus wanted us to pray in private or at least not make it a show.


I would not have bothered with the Ecclesiastics quote. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were being sincere when you included yourself in what Jesus wanted, but now that all doubt has been removed, don't expect me to fall for your disingenuous crap again. Make up your mind, either you were being disingenuous then, or you are being disingenuous now, or both. You are not innocent.




Disingenuously? Do you kiss your bible with that judgment? I asked for a pretty good reason. The last time I checked, it did not need to be outwardly visible that you are praying to the Christian god. So how did anyone know who was praying and who was not in order to target people JUST FOR PRAYING?


Uh-huh. See you are are? You don't want to be preached to about the Bible, but you sure as hell want to preach it yourself don't you? You can play these games all you want. Only fools will buy into your nonsense.




You seem really angry for a Christian. You keep telling me I am missing things and can not read. Is that because you got so rude about me talking about the constitution and I pointed out that I never once mentioned it? Does that pull a certain personal string? Try being nice for just a little.


You seem to want to project anger onto me, but this is your projection. If you want to play the legal game, you can not pretend the Constitution has no bearing on the matter. Why don't you try being nice, and by nice I don't mean obsequious, I mean nice. Like attracts like, sport.




I still see no proof anyone was being stopped from praying. I see a group of people being asked to stop blocking and being disruptive. Can you show me one person who was also prevented from having a personal conversation with their god without making a public spectacle of it?


And again, how many times do I have to say this? I never saw any proof of it either and spoke to that, and this compelled Fort Anthem, (That would be the O.P.) to reply to my assertion and agree. The language we both used was hearsay. Do you know what that word means? Is this what is causing your confusion?




That statement makes plenty of sense. I apologize if it was a bit over your head.


Not sorry enough to explain though, are you? Let's examine that statement you think was over my head again, shall we?




You cannot use Jesus to say he commanded people pray when they prayed as an excuse while discounting the fact that he never detailed they must stop moving or gather in a group to do so.


Uh-huh, way over my head pal. Let us never mind the avoidance of any commas to clarify thought changes. Let us never mind that I never said that Jesus commanded people to pray, and that I never discounted any "fact" that he never detailed "they must stop moving or gather in a group to do so", whatever the hell that means. If you were genuinely interested in being understood, don't you think you would have just clarified what this means, instead of insisting it is a thought over my head?




Of course, there is no chance you are just having trouble understanding English?


Oh, is that the language you are using? English is it? Here are some English words for you. "You cannot use Jesus to say he commanded people pray when they prayed as an excuse while discounting the fact that he never detailed they must stop moving or gather in a group to do so." Yep, all the words in that pretense of a sentence are English words, that much is certain.




So you are still looking for a way to justify giving Jesus the back of your hand in order to test a man made law? I am sure you will be rewarded in kind.


Back to the disingenuous crap again. What are you, Christian when it suits your purposes, and non-Christian when it doesn't? Are you not aware that Jesus tested man made laws? The difference between your hypocrisy and mine is this; where I suggested Fort Anthem and I go to the steps of The Supreme Court and pray so that other men could see us, I am doing so in order to challenge man made laws that seek to diminish human rights. When you use Jesus, you use him as a weapon to belittle your opponent. Are you Christian? You sound like sometimes, you know? Christians will do that you know? Use Jesus as a weapon.




Actually, from this very post here I would most certainly have to guess you just do not read English well and have missed all of that. Oh well, have fun defying Jesus to prove you have the right to defy Jesus. Maybe he will explain that to you when you meet up.


Yep, you sure sound like one of those Christians who love to use Jesus as a weapon. Don't shoot yourself in the foot with that big Jesus, pal. That could be painful.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


If I can follow saltheart's reasoning, what he/she is saying is that NO ONE has the right to subvert or derogate someones opinion or speech.

Is that incorrect in your viewpoint?

Is someone allowed to subvert speech that is NOT detrimental to someone else?

I mean, I could start spouting off a theory that the purple spaghetti monster controls the world and create a WHOLE NEW religion, are you going to stop that?

Or let us say that I want to create a religion where INDIVIDUAL responsibility and INDIVIDUAL salvation is the truth. Are you going to try and stop that? Or how about love, sovereignty, everlasting life and communal responsibility?

Whatever!; as the Valley Girls use to say.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Uh-huh. I asked if you were sober due to your problem with constructing coherent thoughts. Your questions seems to be rooted in angry judgment, my judgment was academic.


I was not aware that English was going to be a problem for you. I am very sorry you are having a hard time comprehending what I am writing. Unfortunately, lashing out angrily because you do not understand does very little to help your attacks stick. The fact that you think judging my sobriety over your inability to understand is "academic" is laughable to say the least. Why are there not more internet sobriety checks?
If you want to sling insults instead of carry on a conversation, then please feel free to do it with someone else. I never attacked you or your sobriety. Sorry my questions upset you so much and my use of English left you angry and confused. I do apologize. I thought this was a discussion forum but this is just an angry rant.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


If I can follow saltheart's reasoning, what he/she is saying is that NO ONE has the right to subvert or derogate someones opinion or speech.

Is that incorrect in your viewpoint?


I just do not think it is so black and white as is being portrayed here.


Is someone allowed to subvert speech that is NOT detrimental to someone else?


I cannot go to the local multiplex and scream the ending to each movie into each theater - I do have that right though, don't I? Should anyone be able to stop me? How about screaming pointlessly at the library? Are these things detrimental? Who was hurt? What are the damages? If we are discussing law, it is going to get tricky in the library, even with a candlestick.

But is the real issue speech or manner thereof? Should anyone be allowed to speak in any manner they so choose? What if it is not loud enough to cause damage but enough to be heard? Who decides whether or not that heard speech is detrimental? You? Me? The Supreme Court?


I mean, I could start spouting off a theory that the purple spaghetti monster controls the world and create a WHOLE NEW religion, are you going to stop that?


That completely depends. Are you going to need a group of people to stand with you in a federal building with clear rules against that kind of assembly to do so?


Or let us say that I want to create a religion where INDIVIDUAL responsibility and INDIVIDUAL salvation is the truth. Are you going to try and stop that? Or how about love, sovereignty, everlasting life and communal responsibility?


I think you are getting way way way off track now. What is this about stopping anyone from having any religion or forming a religion? Where does that come into play? Who said you cannot start a religion? Go for it.


Whatever!; as the Valley Girls use to say.


Wonder what Jesus is saying about that?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 

the country's going to Hell.
I wish it would.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by acrux]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Personally I'd like to see the Supreme Court return to benefiting Americans. And in my opinion this would include banning any type of assemblage.

The property of the building isn't a public library. They are there to do an important job, and would be quite beneficial to not turn it's grounds into any type of assembly for any purpose.

In my opinion the Supreme Court should be operated like a finely oiled machine, no emotions no organizations spouting this or that.

Just people who are members of the Supreme Court, hearing evidence and deciding based on law.

Stop trying to create religious issues.

"Separation of church and state" comes to mind.

I'm "spiritual" but I wouldn't scream that my religious rights are being oppressed if I couldn't assemble to pray on grounds.

You are there for specific business, do it and move on. Stop tying up the system with personal battles.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The federal government IS public property.


...no... the public has no ownership of the federal government (never has)... the public has no say so in how the federal government operates (never has)... the public has no say so or control over how the federal government polices the properties it functions upon and/or owns (never has)...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The White House is the personal residence of The POTUS and as such a certain amount of privacy and security is to be expected. The same holds true of military bases, in terms of security, but this argument does not hold any weight regarding the steps of The Supreme Court.


...the federal government owns the land the supreme court complex sits upon and that includes the steps, the parking lot, etc...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The federal government has been granted a certain amount of authority regarding security issues, but that authority has been granted by the people.


...we, the people, have NO control over the federal government - never have...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is ludicrous to suggest that praying on the steps of The Supreme Court poses some kind of security risk. Even after 9-11.


...whats ludicrous is your presumption that you know what the attention junkies were praying about or for... it could be they were praying for the supreme court building to be blown up... religious zealots have blown up federal buildings before (allegedly), so its logical to presume that security personnel have been instructed not to presume prayin' folks are incapable of extreme violence...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The First Amendment has not placed any distinctions or restrictions on when and where people can worship, but has clearly placed a restriction on Congress, and that restriction is that Congress may make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).


...the main reason why your thought process is so unrealistic on this issue is that you believe the above statement at the exclusion of the obvious actions of the federal government which have proved (many times) that the contrary is true...

...the indigenous population of the usofa were not granted the right to worship as they please until 1974 - but - that right to worship as they please was NOT unilaterally extended to all tribes and still is not even to this day...

...mormons were not allowed to worship as they pleased, even though they're white christians... they had to alter their religious practices to suit the federal government...

...the branch davidians of mt carmel is another very ugly example of how the federal government REALLY views the 1st ammendment...



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The real issue here is the law that one cannot block access to a public way in the course of demonstrating. It is usually fine if the protesters keep moving, they just can't keep others from gaining access to the building.

Christians will go to almost any lengths to portray themselves as persecuted martyrs.

This is not a 1st amendment issue.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

P.S. simply stand at the perimeter of the SCOTUS and have your "say"...not on federal grounds = OK to pray.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Aggie Man]


I'm not sure if you read the article or not, but they were standing out of the way, off to the side of the bottom of the steps. They were interfering with nobody.

A question for you-

What harm is done to you if you walk by a group quietly praying for a moment, standing off to the side of the steps, out of the way?

Do you bleed? Does your head explode? You won't be able to hear it, so it can't offend, unless you see somebody bowing their head as a threat.

Could it be, it does you no harm, you are just using it as an excuse to force your wishes on people who are doing you no harm, interfering with their freedoms? Are you saying you want to impose your belief's on others so badly, you are actually offended by people simply standing near the stairs you are going up?

Personally I'm offended often by bumper-stickers that say obscene things. I'm also offended by T-Shirts that often say obscene things worn in public. The difference between us though, is I'll defend peoples right to wear that shirt or display that sticker. Why? Because my belief in our freedoms is for real, not just limited to my own selfish wants. If it does not harm me, I do not have the right to object. If I did, I'd be a disingenuous liar.

Some claim things like simply viewing a plaque of the Ten Commandments or seeing a Cross harms them and that they are not protected. These same people claim that lewd images and art intended as an insult do not harm anyone and are protected in the exact opposite way. That tells me these people are as phony as the day is long. Two types do this. Those seeking attention out of some emotional malfunction. Those who are suffering from delusions of grandeur who want to force their ideas on everyone else who they see as being to stupid to have freedoms equal to theirs.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Those who are suffering from delusions of grandeur who want to force their ideas on everyone else who they see as being to stupid to have freedoms equal to theirs.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by Blaine91555]


You mean like people who take a personal and private moment with God and get together to make a public spectacle of it? Those kinds of people?





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum