Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   States petition for secession
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 286 of 384 (689332)
01-29-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ICANT
01-29-2013 3:26 PM


Re: The idea of "hate speech" is another infringement on religious freedom,
Now if you have an apartment building and you have rented an apartment to a person and later that person moves a roommate of the same sex into the apartment, and you find out they are gay and tell them they have to change their belief or move, that is trying to impose one's will on another person.
But if they are unwilling to move they are trying to impose their belief on the person who owns the property.
Really? So if your tenants were vegans they would be imposing a meatless lifestyle on you? Sure ICANT. Your proposition makes a lot of sense. Given that you don't have the right to break your lease, I don't find any issue with you not being able to throw out tenants.
My state has to balance the budget every year. No money can be spent that is not covered by income.
If your state is Florida, its balanced budget is an illusion. Florida balances its budget at the expense of adding to the federal debt. Florida residents take in $1.39 in benefits from the feds for every dollar paid to the federal government.
Is Your State A Net Giver or Taker of Federal Taxes? - The Big Picture
Since the states do not get to decide how the money is spent why should they participate in such a ponzi scheme? By doing so they are doing their citizens a disservice.
Unless you live in DC, your state's residents do get a say in how the money is spent. You have taxation AND representation. Your state doesn't get a stay, but then why should it?
ABE:
Actually states do make some choices, and perhaps we can consider the Senate to represent the state.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2013 3:26 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2013 5:23 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 287 of 384 (689334)
01-29-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by NoNukes
01-29-2013 4:08 PM


Re: The idea of "hate speech" is another infringement on religious freedom,
perhaps we can consider the Senate to represent the state
[OT]
That was the original design and intent of the Constitution. The House was to represent the people and the senate was to represent the states.
The people elected the representatives and the state legislatures would elect (appoint) the senator.
If I recall, Federalist Papers 60, 61, 62 somewhere in there abouts, discusses the senate and why it needed to be a body selected by the organs of the state instead of by popular vote of the people as are representatives. The senators would carry the duty of representing the interests of the state that elected them, not the interests of the people. It was feared that if the people had direct control over both chambers there would be no balance to the demanding excesses of the people.
This was changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment.
Seems the founders were right. The people have control over both chambers and there is no one left to say "NO" to the excesses of the people.
Of course no one can prove this, but I suspect that if the 17th Amendment was not there and the senate was the chamber of the states then a lot of the present federal fiscal woes and overbearing federal arrogance would have been killed in the senate since they would have been contray to the interests of the states.
We screwed the pooch in 1913.
But the people wanted both chambers and now has both chambers and we the people have the government for which we voted. Arrogant, broke and out of control.
[/OT]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2013 4:08 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 288 of 384 (689345)
01-29-2013 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
01-29-2013 12:15 AM


Re: Faith has no examples of First Amendment Violations
You say I don't understand the First Amendment very well, but I think what that amounts to is simply that I reject the revisionist interpretations of it that you accept.
No, the problem is that you accept the Radical Religious Right's (RRR) revisionist interpretations, which are an abomination.
Again, read James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance! Since he wrote that a few years before he drafted the First Amendment (IOW, James Madison quite literally wrote the First Amendment), A Memorial and Remonstrance provides us with direct insight into the original intent of the First Amendment. I remember when "original intent" was an enormously important buzzword for the RRR, but apparently not so much when they can't distort it.
Here is your assignment, Faith. Read A Memorial and Remonstrance. Then use it to support your statements here about the First Amendment. Be sure to quote directly from A Memorial and Remonstrance to demonstrate exactly where and how it supports your statements here about the First Amendment. Your ability to do so will demonstrate to us that your understanding of the First Amendment is in agreement with James Madison's original intent.
You should also start reading Liars for Jesus, a free downloadable book that examines several claims by the RRR's revisionist historians (eg, David Barton) and shows us what the real historical facts are. Remember, the truth shall set you free.
The idea is that the government is not to open its foul mouth on the subject of religion AT ALL. But now thanks to twisted logic if a teacher, now called a "state actor" brings a religious text to school that can be interpreted as the equivalent of "making a law respecting the establishment of religion" and you think this makes sense and this is why I want out of here.
Complete and utter nonsense!
The government can indeed speak on the subject of religion; it simply cannot establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. That is the Great Barrier that defends the rights of the people, decades later renamed as the Wall of Separation between Church and State. Suffering either religion or government to overleap the Great Barrier damages both Church and State and violates the rights of the people.
Nor should a teacher be prevented from bringing a religious text to school. In most cases, it would be for the teacher's own private reading and not for presentation to the class; there's certainly nothing wrong with that. In some cases, it could even be presented to the class as part of a lesson on the history and/or teachings of a particular religion, such as in a comparative religions class, or to support what they are learning about a particular religion's role in historical events. There are even "Bible as literature" classes where that particular religious text would need to be presented. The key is that there would needs to be a legitimate educational purpose for presenting that religious text. What would most certainly not be permissible would be for the teacher to use it to proselytize or to promote his own religion.
Where do you get your crazy ideas from? What you want out of is an imaginary world that's inside your head, so what you're saying is that you want to be out of your mind. Well, it looks like you're most of the way there.
The government is to keep its dirty paws off religion both in the sense of deciding that a particular religion represents the government, and in the sense of keeping people, and that includes teachers, from practicing their religion wherever they want to, including on school premises. But now the teacher is prohibited the free exercise of his/her religion because of being insanely defined as a "state actor" who would then be in the position of defining the religion of the whole nation.
Teachers, like every other citizen of this country, are free to practice their religion as private citizens. But when they are acting in their official capacity, they need to abide by the standards of conduct of their profession. For example, military members are completely free to speak their minds and to participate in demonstrations, etc, as private citizens, but when they wear the uniform or otherwise act in their military capacity then they must conduct themselves professionally, because what they say and do while in uniform infers that they speak for the service. They also cannot use their affiliation with the service in business dealings nor in making public statements, since that would infer that they are speaking for the service.
Do please tell us just exactly what free exercise of the teachers' religion is being prohibited. What specific aspects of teachers' religious exercise are you referring to? Proselytizing? Is that what you are talking about? Do you want teachers to be free to abuse the authority of their positions in order to proselytize to a captive audience? Have you truly no concept how unspeakably evil that is? Are you truly incapable of realizing how extremely valuable the First Amendment is in prohibiting that kind of evil from happening?
Here's the scenario you want: your brand of Christian is teaching the class. There are Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish students in that class. You want that teacher to proselytize to those Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish children in an effort to convert them to your brand of Christianity. You're just fine with that and, indeed, you very much want that to happen.
Now consider this scenario: the teacher is a Catholic (or far worse, a Mormon!) and some of the students in that class are of your brand of Christianity. That teacher proselytizes to the class trying to covert those your-brand-of-Christian students to his religion. Are you still fine with that? Do you still want that to happen?
What's the difference between those two scenarios? In your mind and according your own twisted revisionist view of the First Amendment, there's all the difference in the world. To the First Amendment operating in the real world, there is absolutely no difference! The teacher is prohibited from using the power of the state to promote his own religion. He's free to proselytize all he wants to as a private citizen outside the school, but he is prohibited to do so in his official capacity as a teacher. Regardless of what his religion is. And everybody's rights are protected, regardless of what their religion is. The First Amendment is not intended to only operate for the benefit of a select few, as you mistakenly believe, but rather for the benefit and protection of everybody, regardless of religion.
But your brand of Christians continue to strive for their evil goals, something that is not lost on the public. The public sees the evil that they are doing and trying to do. The public sees the evil in how they repeatedly attack our precious rights and liberties. The public sees the evil of the religious tyranny that they want to create to enslave us in, the same kind of religious tyranny that you have presented here. The public sees their evil and how their evil taints Christianity. And as a result, Christianity becomes something that the public does not want; definitely your brand of Christianity, but for many it's any form of Christianity. Even without employing the Matthew 7:20 Test, they can clearly see that it is a false religion, bears evil fruit, and should be hewn down and cast into the fire.
It's your mess. You created it. You need to clean it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 01-29-2013 12:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 12:55 AM dwise1 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 289 of 384 (689350)
01-29-2013 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ICANT
01-29-2013 3:26 PM


Re: The idea of "hate speech" is another infringement on religious freedom,
I believe in a flat tax or no tax at all.
So you think it's completely fair and a good idea if low income families have to pay 80% of their income in taxes while the wealthy pay less than 1% of theirs?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2013 3:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2013 11:51 PM subbie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 384 (689355)
01-30-2013 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by dwise1
01-29-2013 9:05 PM


First Amendment Violations
I read Madison a long time ago and found it a good argument and him a genuine Christian although I would have to reread it, which i'm not going to do now, though at first glance I don't see the horrible errors in what I said that you accuse me of.
FYI I'm not a fan of David Barton at all who I think has deceived Christians for years now.
You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I've been trying to say here about how I'd like to get out from under the blue ideology, and I've said absolutely nothing that would limit other people's rights, although people keep trying to pin that on me. I have no desire whatever to limit anyone's rights, I simply do not want to be under the rule of some ideologies that I strongly object to personally, such as the current administration. It does appear after playing with the idea that there's nothing I can do about it, that there is no way to set up an alternate state that would operate well, and it perhaps might have to end up stepping on rights of others that I don't want to step on, so that's the end of that thought experiment.
As for religion I'm happy to make provision for people to practice whatever belief they want, I simply do not want to allow some of them political power because they would dominate ME by it. And you for that matter. What you seem to overlook is that there are some religions that would not allow the same freedom to me you think I'm trying to restrict for them, which I'm not, and that's what I was pondering how to get out from under in my own state -- THEIR tyranny. There is an incredible naivete about the world domination aims of both Catholicism and Islam. Protestantism has no such aims. As for individual members I would say nothing against people's practicing whatever they want, individual conscience being inviolable as I see it. I simply don't want their organization ruling over me.
If my Christian state isn't possible, which seems to be the case, then it isn't possible, but I've never had any of the evil intentions you impute to me, which you seem to delight in imputing. But that may be my fault for lack of clarity.
As for the first amendment again I think you are screaming into the wind. Perhaps I'll come back eventually and try to figure out if there's anything worth responding to in your vicious misdirected diatribe.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by dwise1, posted 01-29-2013 9:05 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 1:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 293 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 1:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 291 of 384 (689357)
01-30-2013 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
01-30-2013 12:55 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
Well in describing your ideal state, you certainly did write about arbitrarily depriving people of rights based solely on their religion and even of arbitrarily turning many into criminals by making their religious beliefs against the law. Hardly supports your current claim of being happy to let everybody believe what they want to.
Other Christians, especially Christian academics, have started becoming very critical of Barton, though he's not the only Christian historical revisionist and Red historical revisionism is still a problem.
There is an incredible naivete about the world domination aims of both Catholicism and Islam. Protestantism has no such aims.
Look into Dominion Theology and the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Their aim is to replace the US Constitution with an Old Testament theocracy. While they disagree on theology (pre-millennialism vs post-millennialism), the Radical Religious Right (RRR) in the 1980's adopted the Christian Reconstructionist political plan, except while the Christian Reconstructionists largely favor a multi-generational approach based on education to prepare Americans to choose a theocracy (home-schooling is one major approach that they use), the RRR chose to try to force the change immediately through political power. Even though they have not had enough success, that is still their goal.
It seems that every time Christians of any stripe try to set up a theocracy, it turns into tyranny. Just because Protestants (all kinds of Protestants, not just the few kinds that you choose to recognize) do not have the organization that the Catholics have does not mean that they are immune to the lure of political power.
As for the first amendment again I think you are screaming into the wind. Perhaps I'll come back eventually and try to figure out if there's anything worth responding to in your vicious misdirected diatribe.
Vicious? So that's now how you describe what Jesus said. Interesting.
Also, please read what I wrote. I was talking about our brand of Christian, not about you personally, except that I would expect you to agree with them. Unless you indicate otherwise, what else are we to think?
Religious Right railings against the First Amendment and hypocritical crying about being discriminated against boil down to their not accepting that they are not allowed to use the government or schools to promote their religion and to force their beliefs on everybody else. You were making the same noises as they do, so what else are we to think? If your position is truly different from theirs, then you need to differentiate yourself from them. We haven't seen you do that.
You could start by answering my questions. Again:
DWise1 writes:
Faith writes:
The government is to keep its dirty paws off religion both in the sense of deciding that a particular religion represents the government, and in the sense of keeping people, and that includes teachers, from practicing their religion wherever they want to, including on school premises. But now the teacher is prohibited the free exercise of his/her religion because of being insanely defined as a "state actor" who would then be in the position of defining the religion of the whole nation.
Teachers, like every other citizen of this country, are free to practice their religion as private citizens. But when they are acting in their official capacity, they need to abide by the standards of conduct of their profession. For example, military members are completely free to speak their minds and to participate in demonstrations, etc, as private citizens, but when they wear the uniform or otherwise act in their military capacity then they must conduct themselves professionally, because what they say and do while in uniform infers that they speak for the service. They also cannot use their affiliation with the service in business dealings nor in making public statements, since that would infer that they are speaking for the service.
Do please tell us just exactly what free exercise of the teachers' religion is being prohibited. What specific aspects of teachers' religious exercise are you referring to? Proselytizing? Is that what you are talking about? Do you want teachers to be free to abuse the authority of their positions in order to proselytize to a captive audience?
So then just what exactly are you talking about? If not being free to proselytize to their students, then what exactly?
Until you differentiate yourself from other Red Christians, when you again make the same noises that they do then at least have the common courtesy to not pretend to be so surprised when we have no alternative but to assume that you are the same as them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 12:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 1:50 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2013 5:28 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 384 (689359)
01-30-2013 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by dwise1
01-30-2013 1:35 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
Well in describing your ideal state, you certainly did write about arbitrarily depriving people of rights based solely on their religion and even of arbitrarily turning many into criminals by making their religious beliefs against the law. Hardly supports your current claim of being happy to let everybody believe what they want to.
In my own Christian state I don't want other ideologies, that's what I was playing around with. I want to keep the faith pure. Others then raised the possibility of people giving up the faith. What then? Well what DO you do when you want to preserve the faith of your state and don't want other ideologies undermining it? If you have laws for that purpose then somebody's rights have to be limited somehow. But I certainly said absolutely nothing about criminalizing BELIEFS, you imposed that on me. I would outlaw teaching other doctrines in my state, I'd have to if I want to preserve the faith the state is founded on. So it turns out there is no way to have this state I want to have. The Christianity of the US has already been undermined by exactly the kind of forces I'd want to limit in my own state. Apparently there's no way to prevent it in this fallen world. Again, people can believe whatever they want, but I don't want their beliefs undermining the faith my state is built on, I don't want them teaching my children and I don't want them ruling over me. You figure out how to solve this problem if it is solvable.
I do not support Barton.
I am opposed to Dominionism and Reconstructionism.
I certainly do not deserve your accusations about how I see the First Amendment but your vicious attack makes me not want to think any more about any of it.
You have no right to demand that I answer your questions or make any of the accusations you've made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 1:35 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 308 by subbie, posted 01-30-2013 9:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 309 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 9:50 AM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 293 of 384 (689360)
01-30-2013 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
01-30-2013 12:55 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
No, you're just raising even more questions.
We have that the Red Christians who are into the RRR agendae want to be able to have their religion established and to use the government and schools to promote it, including being able to proselytize to the students in the schools -- that is exactly what the "creation science" "public school edition" materials did, repeatedly pressure the students to decide between the "unnamed Creator" (nudge-nudge-wink-wink, know what I mean? ... sorry, you wouldn't understand a Monty Python reference, but we do) and "godless evolution". So their complaint against the First Amendment is that it won't allow them to proselytize in public schools.
So the question is: what do you think? Are you in favor of teachers of your persuasion being allowed to proselytize to their students. Be aware that "witnessing" is a form of proselytizing. Are you or are you not in favor of that? Why or why not?
If you are in favor of your people being allowed to proselytize in their official capacity as teachers, are you for or against teachers of other faiths also being allowed? Again, why or why not?
Do you believe that the First Amendment only applies to you and your people? Or that it applies to all Americans? Why or why not?
Answering these questions honestly would go very far in clarifying your beliefs and your position and prevent misunderstandings. But of course if you instead choose to avoid answering these simple questions so that you can generate even more confusion, then that would be a typical creationist tactic.
Clear the air or muddy the water. The choice is yours. My expectations are very low, so surprise me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 12:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 294 of 384 (689361)
01-30-2013 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
01-30-2013 1:50 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
You have no right to demand that I answer your questions or make any of the accusations you've made.
Your refusal to clarify your position is duly noted. You choose to muddy the waters further. You choose to force us to assume what your position really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 1:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:04 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 384 (689362)
01-30-2013 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by dwise1
01-30-2013 2:02 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AT ALL, PERIOD. I'VE SAID THIS I BELIEVE ON MANY OCCASIONS. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE A GUARANTEED WAY TO KILL THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OF CHILDREN. CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT SUPPORT THEM AT ALL.
But as for the first amendment, it is absolutely stupid to put teachers in the place of Congress and apply the amendment to them. If you want to limit their activities by another standard, fine, but usuing the first amendment in that way makes no sense.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:02 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:16 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 310 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 9:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 320 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2013 9:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 296 of 384 (689363)
01-30-2013 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
01-30-2013 2:04 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
And you continue to avoid the simple questions that would do so much to clear the air.
Obviously you are hiding what you actually believe. What else can we think?
PS
The question is not about the effect on "Christian" children, but rather about Christian teachers wanting to use the schools to convert the children to their brand of "Christianity". Quite the opposite of what you were SHOUTING about. Getting hysterical again?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:09 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 297 of 384 (689364)
01-30-2013 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by dwise1
01-30-2013 2:06 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
I haven't read your questions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:06 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:18 AM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 298 of 384 (689365)
01-30-2013 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
01-30-2013 2:04 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
But as for the first amendment, it is absolutely stupid to put teachers in the place of Congress and apply the amendment to them. If you want to limit their activities by another standard, fine, but usuing the first amendment in that way makes no sense.
Complete and absolute nonsense!
Nobody is putting teachers in the place of Congress! What idiocy! Do you actually have absolutely no concept of delegation of authority? In the services' NCO and Petty Officer training, they start with the US Constitution and follow all the laws, Executive Orders, Regulations, policies down the long chain to the basis of our authority over our subordinates. At no point were we ever "put in place of Congress". Rather, that long chain was how the Constitution was to be implemented. You really need to try to spend some time in the real world.
And implementing those laws and policies to ensure support of the First Amendment makes all sense in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 299 of 384 (689366)
01-30-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Faith
01-30-2013 2:09 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
Then read them!
You're working so hard to hide what you really think and believe. Must be something really bad. No wonder nobody wants to trust Christians. No wonder nobody is even able to trust Christians.
Edited by dwise1, : added last sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 2:25 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 300 of 384 (689367)
01-30-2013 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by dwise1
01-30-2013 2:18 AM


Re: First Amendment Violations
EVERY TIME I SAY ANYTHING AT ALL IT GETS MISCONSTRUED IN THE MOST CRAZY NASTY WAYS I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO TALK TO ANYONE THE WAY YOU DO?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:18 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 303 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2013 2:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 313 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2013 11:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 321 by ramoss, posted 01-30-2013 10:20 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024