Discrimination

Thanks for your reply. This sounds more like a wellfare case to me than affirmative action. I am all about allowing the government to give them a generous amount of money, so long as they use it to learn or improve their skills so as to be increasingly competitive in the work force.And... you're right, that is a pretty extreme case. I seriously doubt that a single decent family would run up against THAT much prejudice in an American city today, and if they did, there are many other diverse less prejudiced cities around. Even in this extreme case, I do not believe legislation is the answer.Have you ever heard of Booker T. Washington? He founded Tuskeegee College for African Americans. It is amazing what he was able to achieve even growing up in the prejudiced post-civil-war South simply through hard work and study. He accomplished everything without affirmative action, and what's more he changed the hearts and minds of many bigotted Southerners with his humility, good work ethic, and strong desire to improve the South. Not at all!! On the contrary your politeness, humility, and coolness is very refreshing. You're doing an excellent job.

oh well this gets a little more shady. If the citizens are putting up religious symbols in public places like political posters around elections, that is definately okay.I don't know how it would work if the local government wanted to put up a religious symbol using tax money. I don't think they should be able to use federal funds to purchase it, state funds are questionable, but I see nothing wrong with local funds.The "separation clause" only says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; not "Nothing religious shall reside on public property."

Thanks for your reply. I don't view employment as a right, but a priviledge. However, I am willing to use the government to help people improve themseleves as this does not take away anyone's freedom. Well, sure, they aren't being forced to take the money. The way our welfare system is currently set up, I don't think there would be any danger of this. No, of course not, but decent hard working people are more likely to get a job than indecent lazy people even in a prejudiced environment. Well, no, but where there's a will, there's a way as they say. I point to Booker T. Washington as my example of this. It is the American dream to go from nothing to everything even in "unfair" circumstances. Many people realized that dream in a much harsher environment than 21st century America without the Government forcing anyone to give them a job.

No.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/qs]This statement is only talking about congress passing laws. You can have public support of something without having congress pass a law mandating it. If your broad interpretation of this clause is what they had meant, surely they would have been more specific. The one does not logically follow the other. But I realize you and at least half of all other Americans disagree.

Thanks for your reply. I am not in favor of Congress banning Gay Marriage as this would go against the separation of church and state clause. I don't want to change the constitution. I just want people to not be forced to become secular as soon as they step into the public. The majority imposes it's views on the minority all the time in elections in councils in boards. We have security measures built in to make things more fair, but in the end, decisions must be made and usually the majority gets their way. So long as the minority maintains their personal freedoms and governmental power remains decentralized it works great. I don't really think the national government should have anything to do with marriage for anyone. And I think YOU should have the say in your community or state to support the curricula of your choice, but I do NOT think washington beaurocrats or any other beaurocrats should be the ones to determine what your kids are taught. Nor do I think judges should have the say because one or two students are offended by something.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-05-2005 00:00 AM

No I haven't forgotten, though I'm no historian. I am simply espousing more local control and less national control and less control from idiotic lawsuits.