| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2004 02:18:23 PM · #76 |
In all honesty Olyuzi, it makes me sick to think that the ACLU would use the court system as a means of giving a "very expensive civic lesson" to the community. The threat of legal action used as a financial tool to force capitulation is one of the things that is hurting our country. Some governments incorporate no mention of God in their laws and some are based entirley on it. Why cant America today exist as the constitution mentions with reference to God.
After searching the constitution I have found no reference to God. I was thinking of course of the Declaration of Independence.
After further thought I do not believe it is appropriate to show crosses above a church on a city seal. I would be insulted if it were a picture of the Koran above a Mosque. I do however still believe in references to things like "In God we trust" and the like. Does that sound hypocritical?
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 14:38:27. |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 02:48:39 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
[quote=Olyuzi]
The incline of the anti-christian movement by the left I'm sure matches nicely with the moral decline of this country! |
Because I don't believe in God, my morals are less valid than theirs. |
I see how it would be easy to extrapolate this from my comment but let me take it a step further, because I don't believe that...
I don't thin athiests are imoral, or bad people or deserving of bad things. What has happened though, in a wake of attempted destruction of mostly the christian religion by groups like the ACLU, The teaching of morals in general have greatly declined.
Yes it's arguable and understadab;e to be against schools teaching kids morals, but on a WIDE scale, they are not learning them at home and the teachers are to afraid to help!
I do know for a fact that the degeneration of our schools matches closely with the "liberalization" of the school system and removal of the teachings of morals IN school. This is an AND statement, I'm not bashing all reforms yb the liberal party in the school system, but it's obvious that what they have done is in the end failing miserably. I want my kids to BE smart not FEEL smart!
It is no longer OK for a teacher to tell a kid he is wrong or inform him of any mora;l guidelines, the ACLU or NAACP or any number of other groups will sue the school and or the teacher.
I hope that makes sense?
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 14:51:17.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2004 04:07:54 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
I do know for a fact that the degeneration of our schools matches closely with the "liberalization" of the school system and removal of the teachings of morals IN school. |
I would say it's much more closely aligned with the prevalence of television since the mid-1950's. Let's ban TV, as it obviously is corrputing our country's morals ...
Cause-and-effect is a tricky area ... "knowing for a fact" is pretty strong language -- I'd love to see your documentation which shows that our decline in moral fiber is directly caused by (not coincidental with) the "liberalization" of the educational system, as you describe it.
BTW: I don't think the ACLU is against the Second Amendment -- I think they may be against the attempts of the NRA to prohibit registration/licensing of firearms, and controls over certain kinds of guns (such as assault weapons) which have no role in hunting or "recreational" shooting ... they are designed for the sole purpose of killing humans. |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 04:54:41 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: I don't think the ACLU is against the Second Amendment -- I think they may be against the attempts of the NRA to prohibit registration/licensing of firearms, and controls over certain kinds of guns (such as assault weapons) which have no role in hunting or "recreational" shooting ... they are designed for the sole purpose of killing humans. |
What's wrong with that ? The second ammendment is about a right to bear arms, implicitly for the purpose of killing humans. Armed militias of the people aren't formed to go hunting deer. The second ammendment isn't about needing to have a shot gun to get rabbits and foxes off your farm (or squirrels). It is about allowing US citizens the right to bear arms against the standing government (typically human[ish]). An assault rifle would seem to be a good choice in that context.
Gandhi, An Autobiography
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
By: Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
05/27/2004 05:01:52 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
BTW: I don't think the ACLU is against the Second Amendment -- I think they may be against the attempts of the NRA to prohibit registration/licensing of firearms, and controls over certain kinds of guns (such as assault weapons) which have no role in hunting or "recreational" shooting ... they are designed for the sole purpose of killing humans. |
The second amendment states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, is the right to bear arms for hunting purposes or killing people?
Damn, Gordon beat me to it!
[edit]Message edited by author 2004-05-27 17:04:49. |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 05:04:57 PM · #81 |
OK -- violent overthrow of the US Government is usually considered a left-wing radical notion, but I guess it makes sense that the gun-totin' flag-wavin' hot-radio talkin' right-wingers are actually more likely to perpetrate the act, at least successfully.
"When liberals assemble a firing squad they form a circle ... facing inwards."
Sorry for the stereotypes ... I've been up since 4 AM and I am too darned grouchy :( |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 05:15:50 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
So, is the right to bear arms for hunting purposes or killing people? |
So, when will the NRA quit pussyfooting around the issue and come out with a declaration "Heck yeah -- we want to have guns so we can kill people!"
And, by your logic, if you don't sign a declaration when you buy the gun that yes, it's explicitly for the sole purpose of killing people, the government has every right to restrict or regulate your use of it.
Can we overthrow all those laws which mandate tougher sentences if a gun is used in the commission of a crime? After all, that certainly "infringes" on the person's right to use that gun ... in the case of shooting public officials they would seem to be guaranteed complete immunity. :)
Can we go back to arguing about religion now?
Hey, the Bible doesn't say anything about guns ...
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 17:16:07. |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 05:25:12 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, the Bible doesn't say anything about guns ... |
I think you are confused. Charlton Heston was in the bible.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2004 06:03:05 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, when will the NRA quit pussyfooting around the issue and come out with a declaration "Heck yeah -- we want to have guns so we can kill people!" |
Ain't nothing wrong with killing people. Some people need killing. If I had the chance to take out some dirt bag, the only thing I'd feel is the recoil! |
|
|
|
05/27/2004 06:06:00 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, the Bible doesn't say anything about guns ... |
I think you are confused. Charlton Heston was in the bible. |
That's Right! God spoke to him in person, and gave him those big stone tablets with the rules we are supposed to live by ... the ones that say Thou shalt not kill.
To paraphrase #11, what part of "Shalt not ..." don't we understand here?
Message edited by author 2004-05-27 18:07:04. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:19:07 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by slingshot:
Wow this is some subject.. I already spent way too much time following this thread but I can't stop. I am convinced that religion politics and sports will always end up with violations of TOS...but hey free speech..right??( only kidding, lets try to respect each other regardless of viewpoints.) What gets me however is even the supporters of the ACLU know when they are "pushing the envelope" and yet still offer their blind support. Decency, common sense and tolerance are what this country should be about. I think the ACLU does push its own right side agenda every chance it gets. Civil Liberty as long as it agrees with the political right agenda. It seems to me that the ACLU could pursue many other issues that truly trample on the rights of society rather than trying to legally make an attempt at striking reference to God in any form of government. (please wait a sec before responding, I need a sec to put on my flack jacket) |
No need for the flak jacket! :)
But, I will say that I think that the ACLU does take on lots of different types of issues, all of which have to do with preserving individual liberties. They don't specialize in separation of church-state issues, to the exclusion of others.
That said, it does seem kinda picayune to go after the county seal - one would think there would be bigger fish to fry. The interesting question might be why they decided to make this case?
Anyway, I will say this - and Russell - I think this might address part of your issues as well - is that we have been seeing an upsurge in the visibility of church-state cases lately, but I think it isin response to iniatives of the Bush administration, and the better organizational and governmental-focused activities of the "Christian Right" over the past decade.
IMO, the ACLU is not "anti-Christian" or "anti-religion" in any way. What they DO litigate is when the free expression of anyone's religion escapes the extremely generous boundaries of their homes, their churches, their religious schools, their private clubs, and vitually anywhere on the planet they wish to pray - EXCEPT on public (civic) property.
(Personally - that's what bugs me - it seems to me that 99% of the occupiable three-dimensional space is a totally free religious-expression zone. Why religious prosylitizers insist on taking over the remaining 1% despite the objections of others is very bad form IMO.)
Slingshot, as far as your 2nd amendmend criticisms of the ACLU - I think it was you who wanted to see more from them there?.... and this is coming from a hunter, BTW, with a closet full of firearms, and someone who actually believes that the 2nd amendment DOES give Americans the right to bear arms - The sad fact is that there is virtually no Supreme Court case law to support my (our) view!
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the preponderance of law actually "shoots it down". Bad pun.
I really do think the ACLU is a very principled and ethical group. If there was case law there, i think they would swallow the pill and defend the right, if it existed.
Remember, the ACLU are the folks who defended the rights of the KKK to march in Skokie. That is a REALLY bitter pill to swallow, but that is what they are all about.
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 11:21:05. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:43:51 AM · #87 |
By what criteria will you decide if someone is a "dirtbag?"
There are very strict and narrow criteria for justifiable homicide.
Originally posted by thelsel:
Ain't nothing wrong with killing people. Some people need killing. If I had the chance to take out some dirt bag, the only thing I'd feel is the recoil! |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:45:05 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, the Bible doesn't say anything about guns ... |
I think you are confused. Charlton Heston was in the bible. |
That's Right! God spoke to him in person, and gave him those big stone tablets with the rules we are supposed to live by ... the ones that say Thou shalt not kill.
To paraphrase #11, what part of "Shalt not ..." don't we understand here? |
It is apparent that many do not differentiate between the terms "murder", "slay", "kill", etc. The part of "Shalt not ..." that many don't understand is that the original term for "kill" following the "Shalt not ..." was RATSACH, which means MURDER. In the NEW TESTAMENT references to the commandment, the word used is PHONEUO. In the whole of the original texts translated as the King James Bible, there are 11 different words translated as "kill" ( e.g. APOKTEINO, THUO, SPHAZO, NAKAH, HARAG, SHACHAT, etc. ) , but the words RATSACH and PHONEUO are reserved only for the type of MURDER stated in the commandment as opposed to SLAY, SACRIFICE, SLAUGHTER, etc. The word used in the commandment implies much more than just the taking of life. It implies intent. That's the part many don't understand.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:41:00 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It is apparent that many do not differentiate between the terms "murder", "slay", "kill", etc. The part of "Shalt not ..." that many don't understand is that the original term for "kill" following the "Shalt not ..." was RATSACH, which means MURDER. In the NEW TESTAMENT references to the commandment, the word used is PHONEUO. In the whole of the original texts translated as the King James Bible, there are 11 different words translated as "kill" ( e.g. APOKTEINO, THUO, SPHAZO, NAKAH, HARAG, SHACHAT, etc. ) , but the words RATSACH and PHONEUO are reserved only for the type of MURDER stated in the commandment as opposed to SLAY, SACRIFICE, SLAUGHTER, etc. The word used in the commandment implies much more than just the taking of life. It implies intent. That's the part many don't understand.
Ron |
I think it is convenient but not really true to assume that the word can be directly translated as either 'kill' or 'murder' and would then also subsequently adequately map to our current legal definition of particularly the second case.
It appears in reality that the term RATSACH actually is more related to killing in anger or with premeditation as part of revenge. While this is certainly narrower than just 'killing' it probably doesn't go as far as the current definition of 'murder', although it is obviously simpler just to assume a one to one correlation between the languages and times.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:00:48 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think it is convenient but not really true to assume that the word can be directly translated as either 'kill' or 'murder' and would then also subsequently adequately map to our current legal definition of particularly the second case.
It appears in reality that the term RATSACH actually is more related to killing in anger or with premeditation as part of revenge. While this is certainly narrower than just 'killing' it probably doesn't go as far as the current definition of 'murder', although it is obviously simpler just to assume a one to one correlation between the languages and times. |
You are correct, of course, Gordon. I was just trying to point out that there is a difference between the type of action that the commandment prohibits and other types of actions that have the same result ( death ).
Although we do quantify those actions ourselves - for example: accidental death, justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 14:51:32. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 12:26:58 AM · #91 |
wow so much to comment on...so little brain power left this late at night. (and some of this might not be directly related to things talked about but something i feel the need to vent about)
First off...I dont know a ton about the ACLU. but from what I gathered a lot of what they do is unfair to one group while being fair to another which I think is ridiculous. the united states...land of the free, home of the offended. some people need to be offended sometimes (tho probably not on the matter of religion.) another thing that majorly ticks me off is the new trends in raising children and in education. heaven forbid you tell a child he/she is doing something wrong. how the heck are they going to learn anything if all they ever hear is praise? my english teacher made a good point...that if everything is good is not special. there has to be some bad in life to really make the good good. parents who let their children walk all over them are ridiculous. some of these four and five year olds who are currently not being disciplined for anything they do wrong are more than likely going to turn out to be some of the most rebellious kids this country has seen. in no way am i saying every child will be like that but i'd be willing to bet a good amount of them will be. if i misbehaved when i was younger i got spanked. and i didnt do whatever it was ever again. ive had to "babysit" a group of 20 second through fourth graders and it was very easy to tell what parents disciplined their children and what parents let their kids walk all over them. but enough about that.
another point...someone earlier mentioned that as this country turns their backs on God then God will turn His back on us. or something like that. well i fully agree. everyone is welcome to their own opinion but ya know what? after people such as the ACLU keep telling God to get out of the country, well eventually He will. my bible teacher commented the other day that if America doesnt change its evil ways then God will have to punish us or else He has to apologize to sodom and gomorrah (ancient biblical city destroyed by God for its evilness...look it up in the old testament if you're curious or dont have a clue what im talking about...) My college planner had an editorial cartoon on his bulletin board of one guy asking another why God didnt prevent Columbine, the other guys response being because He isnt allowed in schools anymore.
I also think its ridiculous the lack of respect the president seems to get anymore. my view on it is he is in a position of leadership whether you like it or not. and you should respect your leaders. you dont have to necessarily like what he does...but guess what. you cant exactly do anything about it.
it also annoys me that on many issues, republicans and democrats argue over issues simply so they arent agreeing. republicans say the sky is blue, democrats are going to say its green. one question? if our country is so divided against itself how are we supposed to stand against other nations?
after having U.S. history pounded into me for the past two years ive come to the realization that if another world war was to happen, i dont think I have enough faith in this country that it would bond together to fight. when WWI and WWII hit there was such a sense of nationalism and willingness to fight for the freedom of the country that just from the attitude of the country the world should have known it was in for a surprise when the Americans came in. now...well lets just say im surprised the war in iraq has lasted as long as it has without all the troops defecting. (btw i am very glad there are people willing to fight for this country and God bless those still in Iraq.)
Basically to sum this up I wish I had lived in a time before Wilsonian idealism made this country begin to lose its common sense. I hate watching the news (and reading topics like this) because I just get so upset over what I see, especially regarding religion. i really wish I went to public school because if I did I would be praying at lunch every day, i would carry my bible around, and if anyone asked then i would tell them about my relationship with Christ. and if someone tried to sue me for it I'd sue back because then they would be oppressing my beliefs. i dont know where this country is headed but I do know im not backing off from what I believe, even though I am only 16 and may be looked down on just for being young. and anyone who doesnt like it...well I guess we'll see what happens.
p.s. sorry that was really long... |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 01:57:44 PM · #92 |
| I think what bugs people most about the ACLU is how often the courts agree that their position is correct under the Constitution and the law of the land. |
|
|
|
05/29/2004 04:49:05 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think what bugs people most about the ACLU is how often the courts agree that their position is correct under the Constitution and the law of the land. |
I think that what bugs even more people is that the election of George Bush ( note: election not selection ) was also found to be correct under the Constitution and the law of the land.
I've accepted the rulings of the Activist Judges, even though I don't agree that they have correctly interpreted the Constitution.
Why don't the Democrats accept the fact that George Bush was legally and Constitutionally elected to be our President?
Oh, that's right. They want it both ways - as long as it's their way.
Ron
|
|
|
|
05/29/2004 05:34:21 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I've accepted the rulings of the Activist Judges, even though I don't agree that they have correctly interpreted the Constitution.
|
If you accept it, then you would now actually agree - and if you still don't agree, I'd posit that you don't really accept it, other than actually having no choice in the matter ? It doesn't strike me as a case where you can accept it and then still go on to disagree.
Message edited by author 2004-05-29 17:35:26.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2004 11:01:20 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I've accepted the rulings of the Activist Judges, even though I don't agree that they have correctly interpreted the Constitution.
|
If you accept it, then you would now actually agree - and if you still don't agree, I'd posit that you don't really accept it, other than actually having no choice in the matter ? It doesn't strike me as a case where you can accept it and then still go on to disagree. |
Look up the definition of the word 'accept'. Though ONE definition is "to regard as proper, usual, or right", another definition ( #4 in the American Heritage Dictionary ( third edition ) is "To endure resignedly or patiently".
Hence, it is as I said: I accept ( endure resignedly or patiently ) some of the rulings of activist judges, even though I do not agree that they have correctly interpreted the Constitution.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/30/2004 01:20:30 PM · #96 |
So in the original context, you think Democrats should endure resignedly or patiently the fact that Bush is president ?
I think most of them are resigned to the fact that he is president. It would be hard not to, given that he actually is. As in your case, I think many still don't agree with the court decision.
Message edited by author 2004-05-30 15:18:41.
|
|
