States petition for secession

If the schools are really private schools, then you don't need a card for that. But if they are actually public schools in a virtual state system, the virtual state is still subject to the 1st amendment.Many don't seem to be satisfied with the private option, and there are some disadvantages. Under the current system the schools in poor districts are subsidized by tax money from rich districts. The parents don't have to manage that distribution. The state handles it. But in such schools the 1st amendment prevents teaching what a red card holder wants taught.Anyone can of course send their kids to private parochial schools if they are willing to pay.Further the red carder is still forced to live in a society full of people taught real biology and possible even ways to avoid teen pregnancy that actually work. A "virtual" red card doesn't help with any of that.Further red staters are not completely monolithic in their views. Faith would want the super crimson, scarlet, infra-red card.Faith's wishes are to be surrounded by like minded people and not have to even deal with liberals. The virtual card system does none of that.

Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment did not accomplish any such thing. Instead the Establishment Clause only prevented the federal government from favoring a religion. Even after the constitution was ratified, most states had state sponsored churches which in a number of states was the Church of England of all things. The curriculum in the public schools included the Bible stuff. Nobody was teaching Darwin's theory back then because it did not exist.I think we have previously argued about whether that situation was the intent, and I don't want to revisit that argument. Regardless of what Jefferson intended, 'Congress shall make no law' was interpreted by the Supreme Court as applying to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and not to the states. Even after the passage of the fourteenth amendment, the Supreme Court continued to hold that the bill of rights limited federal power only.It was not until about 60 years after the passage of the fourteenth amendment that courts began to apply parts of the bill of rights to limit state power.

I wouldn't call Faith a liar.Faith has expressed that she does not like the First Amendment because it doesn't preserve her view of Protestantism as the law of the land.Perhaps her language is not exactly correct when she talks about her position, and she may have some goofy beliefs about what the first amendment is supposed to do, but I don't believe she is attempting to deceive anyone as to what her position is. She seems to accept that the First Amendment does what it does, and has admitted to the possibility that some of the founding fathers intended it to work as it does.And I think it is true that back in the 18th century, that the country did allow communities to implement her brand of Protestantism as at least the local or state religion.Faith wants her own country or virtual country (a virtual state won't do) in which everybody is her kind of Protestant. If the first amendment does not allow that, then rather than cancel it for everybody, she wants an enclave where she is free of it. She wants a theocracy and she is willing to secede from the US if that would work. I don't see anything dishonest about that.

Dr. Adequate. I believe your eyes are sliding over the 'not' in Faith's sentence."Na I don't want to NOT see or talk to the blues"

The conclusion I draw is that Faith does not understand the First Amendment very well.

You are saying that the mere idea of hate speech is infringement. That's nonsense. Hate speech my be reprehensible but in the US there are no laws against it.If you preach a sermon whose subject is that gay people are an abomination, and in return you receive criticism, is that a problem for you? Do you actually envision in Faithland that nobody would criticize anything you say because they would all agree with it or do you envision that such criticism would be against the law in Faithland?

This seems a bit confused. Teachers in public schools are state actors. The first amendment applies to state actors even though those actors are not literally following acts of Congress or of their state legislature. I think trying to make some distinction between actions by the executive branch or other government actors and Congress entirely misses the point. The First amendment applies directly to both despite. Yes. There is a natural conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Schools have to avoid infringing on both. I thought those sets of Ten Commandments were identical.

Really? So your state legislature does not pass laws? Federal and state agencies like the IRS don't implement regulations that have the force of law? Would you really have free speech if the FBI were allowed to shut you up?The result of interpreting the first amendment as you suggest would be a first amendment that provided absolutely no protection against the federal government at all. State actor means she is an employee directed by one of the several states and not the government of the whole nation. Because of the 14th amendment, the first amendment applies to your state government. Sure, Faith. You cannot even say what they did, but you do know it was evil? From your description apparently the Pope hid part of the ten commandments inside the first commandment where presumably those Catholic dupes could not find it by simply reading the text.Added by edit:Catholic Catechism:

quote:

---

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You seem to be following Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Establishment Clause, an interpretation that I find completely wrong.Yes, favoring the dictates particular Christian sect would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, but so would be a state sponsored religious display that nearly all Christians would agree on, but no follower of Islam would appreciate.

I don't accept that mere persuasion, and even rude in your face shouting and finger pointing amounts to imposing your will; at least when adults are ithe targets. It might be annoying, but unless some kind of coercion is used, I would not consider simply calling me names to be imposing your will on me.Add something to the mix like a recognized authority (the police, my mom) and then you've got some imposing of the will.

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. 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 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.

I think the tyranny is unavoidable. Theocracies hold their principles as indisputable. Yet every Christian accepts that just being moral and just is not enough to meet their requirements. That means to me that theocracies are always going to be needlessly oppressive about issues that don't truly involve right and wrong.The Puritans have a solid history of intolerance. In fact some of them came here because their view of religious freedom involved persecuting others, and they were not allowed to do so in England. The Puritans treated the Quakers and most other non-Anglicans as heretics, and heresy was treason.Faith talks glibly about not giving other sects power in Faithland. But the idea of such a state in our midst ought to be given extremely short shrift. Take it to an island; or maybe to Earth II.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Please feel free to take that break. I've seen a couple of places in this discussion where you have indicated some wearing down, but you never actually seem to take a significant break. You've certainly adopted a minority position, and defending it has to be difficult. I for one, would not judge you for taking some time to yourself.

And you didn't think that denying them political power and outlawing the teaching of their religion would be depriving them of their rights, because, uh, that right never existed in your state? Because they can just leave their lives and get out if they are, say Southern Baptists, CMEs, Jews, or Episcopalians?The truth is that you never made any attempt to protect anyone's rights other than those of you and your friends. Protestantism may not be out to rule the world, but they've historically been pretty tyrannical and intolerant in the little pieces of earth that they have gotten to rule. Yes you can. We're right in the middle of celebrating the 150 year anniversary of the mess created by the last set of losers.