I guess the one who said he who has more votes win.

 

Obama did win didnt he since he had more votes, even if a lot didnt like it.

I guess the one who said he who has more votes win.

 

Obama did win didnt he since he had more votes, even if a lot didnt like it.

 

 

 

Wow. I'm debating a guy that doesn't understand the difference between an election and laws. Beautiful.

But your posts don't show it. But I will refrain from calling you the same word you seem comfortable and content to call others.

 

Yes I am a hypocrit and sinner. But do I try to do the right things and be a good witness and repent for my sins. YES

 

I may tell my family to wear their seatbelts when I dont, I am a hypocrit.

I may tell peopel not ot get mad, but I do. I am a hypocrit.

 

I am not as good as some on here but I dont pretend to be. I am pretty consistent on my criticisms of things. especially since it effects me morally. But like I said, I am not as good as some of you posters who seem to have every answer figured out. (like I do)

Wow. I'm debating a guy that doesn't understand the difference between an election and laws. Beautiful.

 

:lol: :lol:

I guess the one who said he who has more votes win.

 

Obama did win didnt he since he had more votes, even if a lot didnt like it.

 

Except we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Wow. I'm debating a guy that doesn't understand the difference between an election and laws. Beautiful.

 

Are you serious. I know way more than you may think. I may think different because I dont see it one way like some do.

 

Is it fair that 1 person can make 99 people change they way they do things because the 1 dont like something.

Are you serious. I know way more than you may think. I may think different because I dont see it one way like some do.

 

Is it fair that 1 person can make 99 people change they way they do things because the 1 dont like something.

 

We don't live in a majority rules, democracy! :lol:

 

Is it fair that 1 person can make 99 people change they way they do things because the 1 dont like something.

 

You SAY you understand how the law works but then you ask this.

 

Let me simply it.

 

Let's say the fine folks of Cobb County, GA vote 99% to 1% to allow black folk to drive in their city. 99 to 1 sends a clear message as to their desire. Right? So in your mind it should be allowed, correct?

In the article posted. Is that fair to those who believe in GOD and have to change due to 1 person. It is a Methodist owned building. Is thsi fair to Christians to have to suscumb to 1 old lady and the ACLU.

 

This has nothing to do with elections or the law. Only someone with an agenda wanting to undermine a 70 year old tradition.

 

democracy, freedom. It doesnt seem there is any freedom for the Christians in this situatiion.

 

 

So is it fair or not.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/new-jersey-high-school-aclu-compromise-grnew-jersey-school-aclu-compromise/

In the article posted. Is that fair to those who believe in GOD and have to change due to 1 person. It is a Methodist owned building. Is thsi fair to Christians to have to suscumb to 1 old lady and the ACLU.

 

This has nothing to do with elections or the law. Only someone with an agenda wanting to undermine a 70 year old tradition.

 

democracy, freedom. It doesnt seem there is any freedom for the Christians in this situatiion.

 

 

So is it fair or not.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/26/new-jersey-high-school-aclu-compromise-grnew-jersey-school-aclu-compromise/

 

Is it fair to force someone who is not a christian to sign hymns or participate in prayer? The tradition is having the graduation in that building. How is covering up the religious signage inside the building ruining a tradition? Me thinks you wouldn't be having this same stance if it were a mosque they were having the graduation in. The fact is a public school graduation has nothing to do with religion. There's no agenda other then making the setting fair for everyone. What if there were 100 kids in that class, 10 were jewish, 2 were mulism, and 5 were atheist. Is it fair to them to not make the changes?

 

This has nothing to do with elections or the law.

 

That says it all.

Yes I am a hypocrit and sinner. But do I try to do the right things and be a good witness and repent for my sins. YES

 

I may tell my family to wear their seatbelts when I dont, I am a hypocrit.

I may tell peopel not ot get mad, but I do. I am a hypocrit.

 

I am not as good as some on here but I dont pretend to be. I am pretty consistent on my criticisms of things. especially since it effects me morally. But like I said, I am not as good as some of you posters who seem to have every answer figured out. (like I do)

 

BTW, the word is hypocrite.

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

 

Given the 14th Amendment's application of the 1st Amendment to the States, it is a very fine line whenever religion is used in any government activity or place paid for by tax dollars. By allowing a majority's beliefs to be espoused in these situations, we come awfully close to the appearance of an establishment of a particular religion, most often Christianity, at the expense of minority beliefs. On the other hand, the majority's free exercise is arguably underhanded. In this regard, absent a compelling interest, religion is withheld from public functions.

 

I am a white, straight, registered-Republican, middle-class Catholic male. I fall into the majority in seemingly every category possible, yet I still feel that the ACLU is absolutely necessary. I don't agree with many of the lawsuits they bring about, but they are a necessary watchdog. If we were to allow the appearance of a state-sponsored religion to continue to be afforded more and more leeway, then we are undertaking a piecemeal denigration of anyone who chooses to believe something different from the majority. To analogize with the gun control thread, if we continue to regulate what kind of firearms citizens are allowed to own, what right will the 2nd Amendment be protecting 25, 50, 100 years from now?

 

In the same vein, labeling enforcement of the 1st Amendment as un-constitutional could not be further from the truth. Strictly textually, everyone is free to believe and practice whatever and however they wish. In regards to the Framer's intent, the Free Exercise and Free Establishment Clauses were added as different sects of Protestantism were represented in the earliest stages of our country. They did not want an national religion similar to the Church of England, therefore the Clauses ensure that each particular faith can be practiced. The text however explicitly says religion, specifically prohibiting establishment and impediments to free exercise. When tax dollars are involved, the exercise is not free. The ACLU exists so to place a check on this fine line.

 

Bballfamily, this post is not necessarily directed at you, I simply wanted to add my two cents, and used it as an opportunity to actually introduce the text of the Constitution. I don't necessarily disagree with everything you said, but can you elaborate what you mean by "defending many forms of pervasion?"

 

And we do not have a state religion, that is what the 1st Amendment says, it does not say religion has to be excluded from public life.

Just as I believe when a non-religious person or someone with a faith different than yours come into your home, they respectfully follow your lead, just as you would when you are in their home.

In this fashion I believe that religion can be included in public situations like graduation. In communties where faith is of great importance, why should one person stop something of importance to the vast majority? Why cannot this one person practice some tolerance of his own? Afterall I am quite sure they are not going to have an invitation and a baptism after graduation.

And we do not have a state religion, that is what the 1st Amendment says, it does not say religion has to be excluded from public life.

Just as I believe when a non-religious person or someone with a faith different than yours come into your home, they respectfully follow your lead, just as you would when you are in their home.

In this fashion I believe that religion can be included in public situations like graduation. In communties where faith is of great importance, why should one person stop something of importance to the vast majority? Why cannot this one person practice some tolerance of his own? Afterall I am quite sure they are not going to have an invitation and a baptism after graduation.

 

Religion doesn't have to be excluded from public life, that would be a prohibition on the free exercise, however in a situation like graduation, we have a celebration of the culmination of 4 years of taxpayer funded education in a public place. By having a non-secular prayer however, it appears that the school is endorsing a particular religion at an event funded by both majority and minority tax dollars.

 

Unfortunately, the answer to your second paragraph is a private school. Among other reasons, many parents make the choice to spend a lot of money in order to have their children exposed to religion at school.

 

Religion is about the most personal choice that most people have. Given it's importance, the 1st Amendment includes protections (although many see them as limitations). Churches enjoy tax breaks, when the draft came up people were able to avoid the war for genuine religious beliefs, the government doesn't tell preachers how their services should be run etc...

 

As I stated, I'm Catholic. When I graduated from a public university, I quietly thanked God for the opportunity I had. I would have liked for there to have been a public prayer, but I understood why there wasn't one. I get upset at probably the majority of political correctness (Happy Holidays at stores, some unnecessary claims of racism, sexism, etc...). Heck I even understand how something like a ban on a prayer at graduation would get under a lot of people's skin, and I'm not exactly comfortable myself when it is my religion being quieted. I do however find a problem with equating how things may have used to have been or we personally wish they would be with automatically being constitutional.

Religion doesn't have to be excluded from public life, that would be a prohibition on the free exercise, however in a situation like graduation, we have a celebration of the culmination of 4 years of taxpayer funded education in a public place. By having a non-secular prayer however, it appears that the school is endorsing a particular religion at an event funded by both majority and minority tax dollars.

 

Unfortunately, the answer to your second paragraph is a private school. Among other reasons, many parents make the choice to spend a lot of money in order to have their children exposed to religion at school.

 

Religion is about the most personal choice that most people have. Given it's importance, the 1st Amendment includes protections (although many see them as limitations). Churches enjoy tax breaks, when the draft came up people were able to avoid the war for genuine religious beliefs, the government doesn't tell preachers how their services should be run etc...

 

As I stated, I'm Catholic. When I graduated from a public university, I quietly thanked God for the opportunity I had. I would have liked for there to have been a public prayer, but I understood why there wasn't one. I get upset at probably the majority of political correctness (Happy Holidays at stores, some unnecessary claims of racism, sexism, etc...). Heck I even understand how something like a ban on a prayer at graduation would get under a lot of people's skin, and I'm not exactly comfortable myself when it is my religion being quieted. I do however find a problem with e quating how things may have used to have been or we personally wish they would be with automatically being constitutional.

 

The 1st Amendment does not exclude religion from the public forum, it says that one faith may not be recognized over all others, it does not say you cannot have a prayer in a public forum.

Why is it that for 200 years we could have prayers in public forums andemployees could say Merry Christmas without the fear of being fired?

The reason it has changed is that liberals have adopted, some maybe without realizing it, the communist belief that you need to get rid of religion and replace it with government as ones savior, in order to bring about government control and eliminate freedom. It is all about power and control. It is sad to think that some have adopted this political correctness, thinking they are progressive or just hip with the times, when they are giving up freedoms without realizing it.