NYT: Atheist teen forces school to remove prayer - US news - The New York Times - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46160046/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#.TyKIN5jFmlI)

CRANSTON, R.I. — She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

The ho needs to get her ass whipped by the rest of the community.

How one person can change what the rest of the community wants is just beyond me.
a prayer written on the wall does not force anyone to read or believe.

From what I have read, she has been receiving death threats and lives in fear for her life. Even local florists won't make a delivery (one sent by the ACLU) to her home for fear of retaliation. While I do not condone physical harm, remember, you reap what you sow. Good luck little Jessica. Sounds like you're going to need it.

From what I have read, she has been receiving death threats and lives in fear for her life. Even local florists won't make a delivery (one sent by the ACLU) to her home for fear of retaliation. While I do not condone physical harm, remember, you reap what you sow. Good luck little Jessica. Sounds like you're going to need it.

If someone can explain the danger of having a prayer on a wall, I will stand beside her 100%. But the cant.
are they afraid that the prayer will force kids to convert, or think about converting?
and if the prayer was there for the last 40 or so years, then suddenly is taken away, does that send a message of a different type?

Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.

Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.The principle of reaping what you sow does not imply that the reaped harvest is good or bad, just expected and not surprising.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Let's turn the tables again. Would everyone who is defending (or making) the threats have been OK with leaving the prayer and adding an equitable banner stating the merits of secularism or atheism? I'm guessing not the censorship of atheism in the past.The principle of reaping what you sow does not imply that the reaped harvest is good or bad, just expected and not surprising.

I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.

Doesn't anybody else kinda consider it kind of an oxymoron that a bunch of (assuming) Christians would send death threats to a 16yo over having a hanging in a school removed? How very Christ-like of them :sarcasm: That's no way to encourage her to consider Christianity....no wonder she's an atheist. And that's no way for adults to act, period.

I'm also assuming this is a public school. Why don't they just add other prayers to the wall to demonstrate a history of the religions? Or would Christians freak out and demand that Muslim prayer be taken down?

Why do public schools still does this kind of controversial stuff? Are they making a point to "keep God in school"? Just asking out of curiosity and seriousness - please don't attack me, I'm not trying to make any kind of anti-Christian statement.

Wirelessly posted



I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.
Do you believe the reactions are evil?

Doesn't anybody else kinda consider it kind of an oxymoron that a bunch of (assuming) Christians would send death threats to a 16yo over having a hanging in a school removed? How very Christ-like of them :sarcasm: That's no way to encourage her to consider Christianity....no wonder she's an atheist. And that's no way for adults to act, period.

I'm also assuming this is a public school. Why don't they just add other prayers to the wall to demonstrate a history of the religions? Or would Christians freak out and demand that Muslim prayer be taken down?

Why do public schools still does this kind of controversial stuff? Are they making a point to "keep God in school"? Just asking out of curiosity and seriousness - please don't attack me, I'm not trying to make any kind of anti-Christian statement.The same reason people get ticked with revisionist history or when a school takes down a picture of George Washington.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I understand that. But is she really reaping what she sowed? Are the death threats really the appropriate harvest here? She (in a sense) criticized religion and that's going to draw a response; and not nessesarily a good one. But she did not invite violence. The problem here isn't what she did nor that people responded negatively. It's the extreme nature of the backlash. The problem isn't that people are disagreeing with her; the problem is that some people seem to be under the impression that religion is untouchable. That it shouldn't be criticized.

You don have to agree with her to see that the reaction is inappropriate. Her tactics do NOT warrent death threats. This is how OTHER nations work. Not ours.
Do you believe the reactions are evil?

It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid (:lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.

Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers. I would prefer it if you answered the question. That's why I asked it of YOU. :howdy:

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid (:lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.Has nothing to do with my question.

Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid (:lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.

Maybe it's more about one nut job and one DA judge taking away what everyone else wants and thinks is appropriate.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers. I would prefer it if you answered the question. That's why I asked it of YOU. :howdy:

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid (:lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.Has nothing to do with my question.

You aske a question, I asked for clarification. So since you refuse to provide it, I'll go with Webster's first definition of 'evil' as an adjective: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

Yes, IMO these threats are morally reprehensible and arise from bad character.

Maybe the second half of what isaid doesn't directly relate to your unclear and leading question but this is called a discussion :smile: sometimes people discuss the many aspects of a situation rather than answer 'yes' or 'no' directly to you and you alone. Maybe you could respond to it, or just ignore it...IDC.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It depends on how you're defining 'evil'. They are unwarranted and not particularly 'Christian'. I suspect a great deal of hypocracy one the part of her - verbal - attackers.

Like I said, a lot of it comes back to the prevailing idea in this country that one cannot/should not speak out against religion (Christianity). And God forbid (:lol:) if one does, Christians are being persecuted.

Maybe it's more about one nut job and one DA judge taking away what everyone else wants and thinks is appropriate.

We can certainly discuss the merits of the banner's removal. :yay:

But I was responding to the death threats she received.

How do you figure she's a 'nut job'? ...as you do eloquently put it.

Because she has decided that whatever she wants is more important than what the group wants. She has no tolerance for others, but others must accept her as is.

Wirelessly posted

Because she has decided that whatever she wants is more important than what the group wants. She has no tolerance for others, but others must accept her as is.

Are you responding to me? I'll assume that you are.

So, when a bigger group wants to force their opinions on another smaller group, it's OK and because the bigger group Is bigger, they win. OK. Majority rules.

How about an example! MOST people in - say - Dearborn, MI want to force Christians there to convert to Islam and outlaw Christianity. Majority rules! (Note: this is just an example)

She not forcing her opinions on anyone rather she's asking that no one force their opinions on anyone. She didn't insist the banner be replaced with a giant picture of Christopher Hitchens!

Wirelessly posted



Are you responding to me? I'll assume that you are.

So, when a bigger group wants to force their opinions on another smaller group, it's OK and because the bigger group Is bigger, they win. OK. Majority rules.

How about an example! MOST people in - say - Dearborn, MI want to force Christians there to convert to Islam and outlaw Christianity. Majority rules! (Note: this is just an example)

She not forcing her opinions on anyone rather she's asking that no one force their opinions on anyone. She didn't insist the banner be replaced with a giant picture of Christopher Hitchens!

Yep, why not? In a true democracy that's how things work.

Wirelessly posted



You aske a question, I asked for clarification. So since you refuse to provide it, I'll go with Webster's first definition of 'evil' as an adjective: 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>I do apologize for sounding so strong. Don't try to read too much into the question. I am always curious to see what others think about good, evil, etc.



Yes, IMO these threats are morally reprehensible and arise from bad character.

Maybe the second half of what isaid doesn't directly relate to your unclear and leading question but this is called a discussion :smile: sometimes people discuss the many aspects of a situation rather than answer 'yes' or 'no' directly to you and you alone. Maybe you could respond to it, or just ignore it...IDC.
Obviously they are hypocrits. I don't think anybody has missed that. The bible is pretty clear in Romans 12:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Don't worry about those guys fair Una, God will look after them. Worry about yourself and God. That's what's important. :)

Unfortunately they walk among us.............we all need to pray harder, we need to pray for her too.

QUOTE=MMM_donuts;4748055]Doesn't anybody else kinda consider it kind of an oxymoron that a bunch of (assuming) Christians would send death threats to a 16yo over having a hanging in a school removed? How very Christ-like of them :sarcasm: That's no way to encourage her to consider Christianity....no wonder she's an atheist. And that's no way for adults to act, period.

I'm also assuming this is a public school. Why don't they just add other prayers to the wall to demonstrate a history of the religions? Or would Christians freak out and demand that Muslim prayer be taken down?

Why do public schools still does this kind of controversial stuff? Are they making a point to "keep God in school"? Just asking out of curiosity and seriousness - please don't attack me, I'm not trying to make any kind of anti-Christian statement.[/QUOTE]

These are probably the same Christians that blow up abortion clinics and kill Dr.'s who perform abortion. But they only do it in the name of their Lord. :sarcasm:[

Yep, why not? In a true democracy that's how things work.

:doh:

No, no it's not.

That's why we have a system of checks and balances in our government. If a majority decides that blondes aren't allowed to vote and a bunch of states pass it, it can be overturned by the courts.

I do apologize for sounding so strong. Don't try to read too much into the question. I am always curious to see what others think about good, evil, etc.

Well then you have my answer! :yay: No worries!

Obviously they are hypocrits. I don't think anybody has missed that. The bible is pretty clear in Romans 12:

So.....they're not Christian? Or just not good Christians?

Don't worry about those guys fair Una, God will look after them. Worry about yourself and God. That's what's important. :)

Thank you for the advice but I'm going to continue to worry about people like that because talk leads to action.

Well then you have my answer! :yay: No worries!



So.....they're not Christian? Or just not good Christians?God will be the judge. Suffice it to say, they are not walking in the instruction of the Lord.



Thank you for the advice but I'm going to continue to worry about people like that because talk leads to action.True. If anything, the worry is all the more, because if something fatal happens to her, she is destined for a most unpleasant place. I pray that these folks come back to the word of God and that she would be converted, not hurt.

God will be the judge. Suffice it to say, they are not walking in the instruction of the Lord.

No True Scotsman: Logical Fallacies (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

:lol:

True. If anything, the worry is all the more, because if something fatal happens to her, she is destined for a most unpleasant place. I pray that these folks come back to the word of God and that she would be converted, not hurt.

I respect you freedom to this opinion, as long as you understand that's what it is :yay:

No True Scotsman: Logical Fallacies (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

:lol:Mis-characterization of what somebody says is not only dishonest, it's a tactic used by those not interested in serious discussion. I didn't think you were that type.

Anyway, where is what I posted untrue?

Will God judge them (and us)? Yep.

Are they walking in the way specified in Scripture? Nope.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians, although some may not be (who knows but God? Certainly not me, and certainly not you). But then I'm sure some of them are, but are not acting very much like a disciple of the Lord Jesus.


I respect you freedom to this opinion, as long as you understand that's what it is :yay:As I respect yours, as long as you understand that I don't believe its an opinion, but rather a fact. Even so, it matters not to you, correct? You believe it is myth, so you shouldn't be scared or intimidated by it then. Especially since, as an evangelical Christian I want you to be saved, not perish. That's the last thing I would want. :)

Wirelessly posted

No True Scotsman: Logical Fallacies (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

:lol:Mis-characterization of what somebody says is not only dishonest, it's a tactic used by those not interested in serious discussion. I didn't think you were that type.

Anyway, where is what I posted untrue?

Will God judge them (and us)? Yep.

Are they walking in the way specified in Scripture? Nope.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians, although some may not be (who knows but God? Certainly not me, and certainly not you). But then I'm sure some of them are, but are not acting very much like a disciple of the Lord Jesus.


I respect you freedom to this opinion, as long as you understand that's what it is :yay:As I respect yours, as long as you understand that I don't believe its an opinion, but rather a fact. Even so, it matters not to you, correct? You believe it is myth, so you shouldn't be scared or intimidated by it then. Especially since, as an evangelical Christian I want you to be saved, not perish. That's the last thing I would want. :)

:confused: I think you misunderstood what I was saying by posting the link. I didn't say that you'd said anything 'untrue' rather that you've redefined a group in order to avoid being associated with a negative aspect of it. You've don't it twice now. 'I'm a Christian, but even if they are they're not saved...so I'm different'.

And that you 'beleive' it's a 'fact' IS what concerns me; a great deal in fact. It concerns me because people act on what they beleive. You beleive in a set of hypothesis that are unproven. OK. But...within the hypothesis in which you beleive are little bits of murder, violence, persecution, racism, sexism, homophobia, indoctrination, class warfare, genocide, vengeance, slavery.......

Concerning to say the least.

But thanks for not wanting me to perish! :buddies:

Yep, why not? In a true democracy that's how things work.

We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

Wirelessly posted



:confused: I think you misunderstood what I was saying by posting the link. I didn't say that you'd said anything 'untrue' rather that you've redefined a group in order to avoid being associated with a negative aspect of it. You've don't it twice now. 'I'm a Christian, but even if they are they're not saved...so I'm different'.
I didn't say they were not Christians. I said:

Obviously they are hypocrits. I don't think anybody has missed that. The bible is pretty clear in Romans 12:

Can one be a Christian and have hypocrisy in your life? Absolutely. We all do. I'm not disassociating from anybody using a logical fallacy. Their actions don't line up with the Word. Period.

Now, the church may choose to disassociate an unrepentant person. Isn't that what you would think is a good thing?


And that you 'beleive' it's a 'fact' IS what concerns me; a great deal in fact. It concerns me because people act on what they beleive. You beleive in a set of hypothesis that are unproven. OK. But...within the hypothesis in which you beleive are little bits of murder, violence, persecution, racism, sexism, homophobia, indoctrination, class warfare, genocide, vengeance, slavery.......

Concerning to say the least. The bible is pretty clear (like I said) on what is acceptable and expected behavior for God's people in Christ. The standard doesn't change, but people will be people in a fallen world.

But thanks for not wanting me to perish! :buddies:
I sincerely wish it.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



:confused: I think you misunderstood what I was saying by posting the link. I didn't say that you'd said anything 'untrue' rather that you've redefined a group in order to avoid being associated with a negative aspect of it. You've don't it twice now. 'I'm a Christian, but even if they are they're not saved...so I'm different'.
I didn't say they were not Christians. I said:

Obviously they are hypocrits. I don't think anybody has missed that. The bible is pretty clear in Romans 12:

Can one be a Christian and have hypocrisy in your life? Absolutely. We all do. I'm not disassociating from anybody using a logical fallacy. Their actions don't line up with the Word. Period.

Now, the church may choose to disassociate an unrepentant person. Isn't that what you would think is a good thing?


And that you 'beleive' it's a 'fact' IS what concerns me; a great deal in fact. It concerns me because people act on what they beleive. You beleive in a set of hypothesis that are unproven. OK. But...within the hypothesis in which you beleive are little bits of murder, violence, persecution, racism, sexism, homophobia, indoctrination, class warfare, genocide, vengeance, slavery.......

Concerning to say the least. The bible is pretty clear (like I said) on what is acceptable and expected behavior for God's people in Christ. The standard doesn't change, but people will be people in a fallen world.

But thanks for not wanting me to perish! :buddies:
I sincerely wish it.

You're disassociating yourself by saying that they are not holding to the TRUE word; the word that you (presumably) do hold too.

The standard DOES change. OT to NT it 'changed'. It's changed in America; genocide is not good, slavery is forbidden, rape victims are no longer required to marry their attackers, the rich aren't universally condemed (except by some of course, but not my today' religious right). Those things were standard, now they're not. The standard changed.

Wirelessly posted



You're disassociating yourself by saying that they are not holding to the TRUE word; the word that you (presumably) do hold too.

The standard DOES change. OT to NT it 'changed'. It's changed in America; genocide is not good, slavery is forbidden, rape victims are no longer required to marry their attackers, the rich aren't universally condemed (except by some of course, but not my today' religious right). Those things were standard, now they're not. The standard changed.What standard has changed? Society and culture? That's the humanist belief.

The Bible is the Christian standard. It has not changed. Romans 12 is still Romans 12. Some choose to ignore it, others do not.

But, if you want to argue just to argue (which seems to be the case now), I will be departing. Take care! :)

Death Threats are NOT Christian ......... but stupid

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You're disassociating yourself by saying that they are not holding to the TRUE word; the word that you (presumably) do hold too.

The standard DOES change. OT to NT it 'changed'. It's changed in America; genocide is not good, slavery is forbidden, rape victims are no longer required to marry their attackers, the rich aren't universally condemed (except by some of course, but not my today' religious right). Those things were standard, now they're not. The standard changed.What standard has changed? Society and culture? That's the humanist belief.

The Bible is the Christian standard. It has not changed. Romans 12 is still Romans 12. Some choose to ignore it, others do not.

But, if you want to argue just to argue (which seems to be the case now), I will be departing. Take care! :)

I did not mean that the words in the bible literally changed. The standard to which God holds his followers changed from the OT to the NT. Even how people interpret the Bible changed. The standard for Christianity changes. How can you argue that it hasn't?

Arguing just to argue? 1) no one is forcing you to continue the debate and 2) I continue to make points, or would you rather I sit down and shut up?

Wirelessly posted



I did not mean that the words in the bible literally changed. The standard to which God holds his followers changed from the OT to the NT. Even how people interpret the Bible changed. The standard for Christianity changes. How can you argue that it hasn't?God still holds people to the same standard. Moral and ethical Perfection.

Nobody can attain it however (see Romans 5 for explanation). That's why we need Christ. It's the theology of the bible.


Arguing just to argue? 1) no one is forcing you to continue the debate and 2) I continue to make points, or would you rather I sit down and shut up?What points? I've seen very little substantive and lot of vague assertions and smokescreens so far.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I did not mean that the words in the bible literally changed. The standard to which God holds his followers changed from the OT to the NT. Even how people interpret the Bible changed. The standard for Christianity changes. How can you argue that it hasn't?God still holds people to the same standard. Moral and ethical Perfection.

Nobody can attain it however (see Romans 5 for explanation). That's why we need Christ. It's the theology of the bible.


Arguing just to argue? 1) no one is forcing you to continue the debate and 2) I continue to make points, or would you rather I sit down and shut up?What points? I've seen very little substantive and lot of vague assertions and smokescreens so far.

If its all so vague then stop responding. I don't know what else to tell you. I obviously don't see the vagueness, so seems to me you're just being dismissive now.

:doh:

No, no it's not.

That's why we have a system of checks and balances in our government. If a majority decides that blondes aren't allowed to vote and a bunch of states pass it, it can be overturned by the courts.

For your hypothetical example, my answer was correct according to my beliefs. I did not add anything to the question but what was presented. Also why I chose to use true democracy.
Part of the problem with our society, everyone wants to read into things. Face value is 0 because there has to be something hidden or politically corrected to get the right answer.

We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

Don't try to misquote. My reply was correct for the question given, nothing added, no interpretation for a true meaning of the question.

Wirelessly posted

:doh:

No, no it's not.

That's why we have a system of checks and balances in our government. If a majority decides that blondes aren't allowed to vote and a bunch of states pass it, it can be overturned by the courts.

For your hypothetical example, my answer was correct according to my beliefs. I did not add anything to the question but what was presented. Also why I chose to use true democracy.
Part of the problem with our society, everyone wants to read into things. Face value is 0 because there has to be something hidden or politically corrected to get the right answer.

:confused:

So are you saying that the majority should always rule? Even if they're horribly wrong?

Or are you saying the courts should no longer have the power to make decisions?

Who said anything about being PC? My example was about voting rights and the OP is about a publicly funded institution supporting a specific religious doctrine; separation of church and state.

Wirelessly posted



:confused:

So are you saying that the majority should always rule? Even if they're horribly wrong?

Or are you saying the courts should no longer have the power to make decisions?

Who said anything about being PC? My example was about voting rights and the OP is about a publicly funded institution supporting a specific religious doctrine; separation of church and state.
I believe he is picking on those who use the word democracy and then don't think it means majority rule, when in fact it does.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



:confused:

So are you saying that the majority should always rule? Even if they're horribly wrong?

Or are you saying the courts should no longer have the power to make decisions?

Who said anything about being PC? My example was about voting rights and the OP is about a publicly funded institution supporting a specific religious doctrine; separation of church and state.
I believe he is picking on those who use the word democracy and then don't think it means majority rule, when in fact it does.

It is unless the courts decide otherwise as in cases of discrimination. That's the point I'm trying to make. :yay:

Yes majority rules, yes majority should rule.

Yes majority rules, yes majority should rule.

In this country? Absolutely not!

In this country? Absolutely not!

I should have just left it at majority should rule.
In some cases majority does, in others it is usually one misguided federal judge that takes the majorities rights away to change something to what he thinks is right.

I should have just left it at majority should rule.
In some cases majority does, in others it is usually one misguided federal judge that takes the majorities rights away to change something to what he thinks is right.

But I don't think they should. No matter how many people say slavery is okay, it’s not and we have a system in place to make sure such majorities don’t get that advantage to pass harmful laws. Everything should be bumped up against the constitution; no matter how many people say something should be the right thing to do, if the constitution says differently it shouldn't be so.

But I don't think they should. No matter how many people say slavery is okay, it’s not and we have a system in place to make sure such majorities don’t get that advantage to pass harmful laws. Everything should be bumped up against the constitution; no matter how many people say something should be the right thing to do, if the constitution says differently it shouldn't be so.

Oh crap, here we go. How did slaves get imported to this country? How many slave owners were there in this country?

Constitutional law and the rights (or wrongs) are not always adhered to. I have a right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment. Md's. interpretation of that is entirely different. I have a right to do and say as I please, First Amendment. Courts disagree and have decided that speech is censored for the public good.

But I don't think they should. No matter how many people say slavery is okay, it’s not and we have a system in place to make sure such majorities don’t get that advantage to pass harmful laws. Everything should be bumped up against the constitution; no matter how many people say something should be the right thing to do, if the constitution says differently it shouldn't be so.
comparing slavery to a prayer on a school wall is not exactly a reasonable leap as far as this conversation goes is it?

I should have just left it at majority should rule.


Wouldn't matter, too many people are acccustomed to adding spin to suit their needs/desires.

Oh crap, here we go. How did slaves get imported to this country? How many slave owners were there in this country?

Constitutional law and the rights (or wrongs) are not always adhered to. I have a right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment. Md's. interpretation of that is entirely different. I have a right to do and say as I please, First Amendment. Courts disagree and have decided that speech is censored for the public good.

I'm not sure what you're implying about slavery. It was abolished by the 13th Amendment. What's funny about that is, try running a slavery business in this country now. Everyone would be screaming how it violates the constituion. Yet, states enacting laws that violate the 2nd get overlooked. I find that pretty odd.

Every law that is enacted is SUPPOSED to be bumped up against the constitution. State laws are not supposed be able to trump the constitution. I never implied that it couldn’t happen; in fact I believe I was making the point it IS happening and shouldn’t be. The constitution and our republic are supposed to prevent mob rule; from enacting laws that violate the constitution even if the majority believe it should. But that doesn’t mean it wont happen; I completely get that.

:shrug: