Okay, I have a question

[vraiblonde]

Yeah, punk

Yeah!

And while we're at it, I get worn out with those Ken King who try to pretend the Constitution allows and prohibits things that aren't even mentioned. Where in the Constitution does it say that references to religion cannot be displayed in public? Where does it say that towns must dismantle thier nativities if someone complains? Where does it say that wilders have the right to close down whole cities in order to protest their government? Where does it say that foreign terrorists are afforded any rights under our laws?

 

[vraiblonde]

These folk (the protestors) obtain permits.

Yes. And they're granted approval, regardless of where they want to set up shop. Guess why?

BECAUSE IF THE CITY DOESN'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION, THE ACLU STARTS SUING EVERYONE IN SIGHT FOR VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!

 

[Ken King]

Well don't get me confused with something I am not. I see "some" value to the ACLU, but nowhere have I said that they are the all knowing.

Religious freedom, in my mind, would allow for these things. The “wilders” closing down the streets are conducting themselves within the laws established by the area in which they hold their activity so that should fall under the 10th as a state right. The “terrorist” as you label them, being a criminal, is afforded the protections of the 6th. If they are combatants (as I think they are) then they should fall under military law and/or the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Ken King]

Yes. And they're granted approval, regardless of where they want to set up shop. Guess why?

BECAUSE IF THE CITY DOESN'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION, THE ACLU STARTS SUING EVERYONE IN SIGHT FOR VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!

Really, where ever they want? Can PETA people get a permit to protest on the grounds of Perdue Chicken?

 

[Bruzilla]

Can you give me some examples?

Here are my own beliefs: There is no "one true faith." Religious faith is a very personal thing. Not that people choose their faiths from an ecumenical buffet, but that every person has a different gnostic experience. That experience is not a "feeling"--I believe it goes much, much deeper than simple emotion. Every Christian I've met has a different experience of the grace of God and Jesus and Mary, and no two experiences are alike.

Discovery of principles should be a journey of self discovery, which is a nice way of saying that you shouldn't task someone else to do your homework. There are only about a thousand or so papers written by the Founding Fathers that can easily be found on the net. Research them. Read them. Then you can offer an informed opinion.

I agree with you 100% that there is not one true faith, and that people's faiths are as they find them. But that's not the point. The "people" you reference didn't design the United States Government, the Founding Fathers did, so it's what they believed to be the case IRT religion that matters... unless you want to change the government.

 

[vraiblonde]

Really, where ever they want? Can PETA people get a permit to protest on the grounds of Perdue Chicken?

I wouldn't think so, considering that's private property.

But I know damn well you've either seen or at least heard of miles of DC city streets being closed for some march. And I, personally, saw a large section of Manhattan close down for protestors.

 

[Tonio]

Discovery of principles should be a journey of self discovery, which is a nice way of saying that you shouldn't task someone else to do your homework. There are only about a thousand or so papers written by the Founding Fathers that can easily be found on the net. Research them. Read them. Then you can offer an informed opinion.

Just so you know, I've read Madison's Federalist Papers.

Also, what does IRT stand for?

 

[Ken King]

I wouldn't think so, considering that's private property.

But I know damn well you've either seen or at least heard of miles of DC city streets being closed for some march. And I, personally, saw a large section of Manhattan close down for protestors.

Yeah, I've seen it, was once caught up in one of these wonderful events (sic), but they were issued a permit by someone acting in authority for that government. Inconvenient? Hell yes, but by the laws of that government (town, city, county, state, Federal) they were legally conducted.

 

[Tonio]

Really, where ever they want? Can PETA people get a permit to protest on the grounds of Perdue Chicken?

I just had a mental picture of counter-protesters running up to the PETA protesters and glopping them with barbecue sauce or honey mustard sauce.

 

[Ken King]

Tonio,

Relax, IRT = "in regard to" or "in reference to"

 

[Tonio]

Tonio,

Relax, IRT = "in regard to" or "in reference to"

I wasn't worried. For a minute, I thought it was some semi-obscure acronym used in the federal government or in the military or in some specialized profession. (Edited to correct spelling.)

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah, I've seen it, was once caught up in one of these wonderful events (sic), but they were issued a permit by someone acting in authority for that government. Inconvenient? Hell yes, but by the laws of that government (town, city, county, state, Federal) they were legally conducted.

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

And what I'm SAYING is that, when the city DOESN'T grant a permit, the ACLU starts filing lawsuits!!!!!!!

So AGAIN!!!! What is the benefit of the ACLU when all they do is try to thwart local government ordinances and protect foreign terrorists???

 

[Ken King]

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

And what I'm SAYING is that, when the city DOESN'T grant a permit, the ACLU starts filing lawsuits!!!!!!!

So AGAIN!!!! What is the benefit of the ACLU when all they do is try to thwart local government ordinances and protect foreign terrorists???

Do they or is it when a locality denies a permit for one group while allowing a permit for another more socially acceptable group do the lawsuits fly?

They do other things, maybe not as newsworthy, but I have always understood the purpose of the ACLU was to defend the Bill of Rights. Though they certainly aren't friends of the 2nd Amendment.

Are they right in every endeavor they take on, I would say not, but they have been right on some and as such their worth is there.

 

[Larry Gude]

He said, she said...

Yeah!

And while we're at it, I get worn out with those Ken King who try to pretend the Constitution allows and prohibits things that aren't even mentioned. Where in the Constitution does it say that references to religion cannot be displayed in public? Where does it say that towns must dismantle thier nativities if someone complains? Where does it say that wilders have the right to close down whole cities in order to protest their government? Where does it say that foreign terrorists are afforded any rights under our laws?

It doesn't say that references to religion can NOT be displayed. As Ken stated, it's not that the ACLU is all knowing or perfect. Just because they argue a position does not make it right. The point is, are we not stronger for having had the argument?

A local government is NOT establishing a religion per se when it allows a creche displayed in the city park at Christmas but it sure as hell is favoring one. The argument, in that case, would simply be, is that a correct use of local public dollars? A crybaby atheist might say it is not.

Yes, that person is most likely making an argument, as you say, just because they can. You think that is bad. I think that is syptomatic of an healthy public life.

 

[Larry Gude]

So, silly, SUE

when all they do is try to thwart local government ordinances and protect foreign terrorists???

"You're honor, the lovely and gracious Vraimad claims herein that the ACLU are a bunch of busybody azzhats whose true intent is to simply shut down local government just because they can and, most nefariously, to help terrorists actually kill uncle Sam!"

Da Judge: "You bastards!"

Defense: "Objection!!!"

Prosecutor: "You would!"

And so on.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

This is the problem Larry. No where in the US Constitution is there a call for fairness. The Founding Fathers weren't interested in being fair, they wanted a rule by majority, but with an eye towards protecting individual rights of Americans from the government. These guys weren't stupid, and I'm sure that if they wanted to have a strict seperation of church and state they would have had the duty scribe write it in.

I totally agree. As I was pointing out to spoil sport Vrai, I am not saying suit SHOULD be brought where ever it can, just that it should be able to be brought.

Ruth Ginsburg of all people has actually said that Roe v. Wade is a monstrous piece of #### because it short circuited the proper public debate over abortion and our democratic process thus leaving the 'victors' with a decree, not rule of law and the 'losers' with an understandable bad and bitter taste in their mouths, thus guaranteeing the ugly public battle we have to this day over the issue.

The spirit of Roe actually allowing one side to win ugly is the modern root of many of the stupid actions we see brought today. For many, it's a 'what do you have to lose' thing.

Some court may just be stupid enough to rule your way instead of respecting the process.

 

[Tonio]

A local government is NOT establishing a religion per se when it allows a creche displayed in the city park at Christmas but it sure as hell is favoring one. The argument, in that case, would simply be, is that a correct use of local public dollars? A crybaby atheist might say it is not.

Excellent point. Using your example, Larry, the government would be establishing a religion if it allowed ONLY the creche and not, say, a menorah. The same would be true if it allowed only the menorah and not the creche. My guess is that's why municipal governments take the (unconstitutional, in my view) step of not allowing the religious displays at all--they don't want the adminstrative headache. I think that's just an evasion of responsibility.

So Larry, what does the Constitution say about you and Dems putting up a Redskins shrine in public parks during football season?

 

[Ken King]

Excellent point. Using your example, Larry, the government would be establishing a religion if it allowed ONLY the creche and not, say, a menorah. The same would be true if it allowed only the menorah and not the creche. My guess is that's why municipal governments take the (unconstitutional, in my view) step of not allowing the religious displays at all--they don't want the adminstrative headache. I think that's just an evasion of responsibility.

So Larry, what does the Constitution say about you and Dems putting up a Redskins shrine in public parks during football season?

Larry,

Take the 5th, Brother.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

the government would be establishing a religion if it allowed ONLY the creche and not, say, a menorah. The same would be true if it allowed only the menorah and not the creche.

To me, personally, I think it is absurd to say the local government is 'establishing' a religion by putting up a creche. I think there is a 'when in Rome' quality that gets lost when a judge does not have the balls to toss out a complaint that some dillweed feels 'threatened' by a Christmas tree and a star.

Worse yet is some judge who says "aha! We have a situation here that MUST be rectified!".

To me, it would be proper for a judge to tell Mr. Dillweed that he is sorry he finds the local spirit of Christmas upsetting but that he should do his best to try and get along with the locals if he wants to stay or exercise his freedom to move elsewhere.

Saddly, Roe and Dredd Scott before it are classic cases of judges more interested in what they think everyone wants to hear winning over common, judicious thinking based on the Constitution. In Scott, Taney saw preserving the staus quo as in the public (and courts) interest. In Roe (who was that, Warren?) the court saw shattering the status and short circuiting the process as in the interest.

We sue because we can and it is STUPID to argue that a Santa hat or a display of Jesus' birth establishs a religion or prohibits another.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the good of the Republic...

...Dems and I can easily quantify and qualify the good to the public mood on Mondays and, thus, the positive effect on productivity in conducting the peoples business, when our heros win.

Therefore it is correctly arguable that a Redskins Shrine on the Mall is merely an after the fact symbol of the recognition of the common faith in the Sons of Washington.

I have a chill.

tap, tap, tap....ahem....Your honor, if you would be so good:

Hailllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.........................