quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Bivoj, the Democrat' objectives for some reason seem easier for me to discern. Theirs is also a deeply divided party, but more predictable, and they seem less hell-bent on destroying themselves and the country along with it.
I haven't much use for either party. Nolabels.org is interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Asked in good faith of a man I consider a friend:
I thought it once stood for the Constitution, for liberty, truth, justice, personal responsibility and fair play.
I have no idea what it stands for today.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If the Constitution actually prohibited prayer in school…we would not have had it as common place up until the mid 1970s.

Hopefully, the current SCOTUS will correct this.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That was because the 1st Amendment did not apply as a restriction upon state governments in the originally.

There was prayer in school in all 50 states prior to the mid 1970s.


Your attempt to force religion, your religion, upon others will not be successful.

You mean the Constitution that says through the Commerce Clause you cannot discriminate against African Americans is services, selling goods, and hiring.

You have no superior claim to the Constitution.

You cannot morally, logically use the 2nd Amendment as comic limitation upon state governments, and not apply the same to the other Bill of Rights Amendments, or Constitutional clauses.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That was because the 1st Amendment did not apply as a restriction upon state governments in the originally.

There was prayer in school in all 50 states prior to the mid 1970s.


Your attempt to force religion, your religion, upon others will not be successful.

You mean the Constitution that says through the Commerce Clause you cannot discriminate against African Americans is services, selling goods, and hiring.

You have no superior claim to the Constitution.

You cannot morally, logically use the 2nd Amendment as comic limitation upon state governments, and not apply the same to the other Bill of Rights Amendments, or Constitutional clauses.

The Constitution does not guarantee freedom “from” religion…only freedom “of” religion. You seem to like Mike Pence…he too makes that argument.

I believe the current SCOTUS will eventually correct that misinterpretation.

No one wants to “force” anyone to any religion. A good Libertarian would want the Federal Government to keep its nose out of local communities and do something useful like securing the border.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That was because the 1st Amendment did not apply as a restriction upon state governments in the originally.

There was prayer in school in all 50 states prior to the mid 1970s.


Your attempt to force religion, your religion, upon others will not be successful.

You mean the Constitution that says through the Commerce Clause you cannot discriminate against African Americans is services, selling goods, and hiring.

You have no superior claim to the Constitution.

You cannot morally, logically use the 2nd Amendment as comic limitation upon state governments, and not apply the same to the other Bill of Rights Amendments, or Constitutional clauses.

The Constitution does not guarantee freedom “from” religion…only freedom “of” religion. You seem to like Mike Pence…he too makes that argument.

I believe the current SCOTUS will eventually correct that misinterpretation.

No one wants to “force” anyone to any religion. A good Libertarian would want the Federal Government to keep its nose out of local communities and do something useful like securing the border.

You should read the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
When Lane talks about allowing prayer in schools, he should be honest enough to say he means Christian prayers. He doesn't include Buddhist prayers or Shinto prayers. Or any other than Christian prayers.

Do you enjoy being wrong Roland? I want the Feds to stay out of it and let local communities decide.

I'm agnostic on the existence of God, but atheist on all religion. I don't want any prayers taught in school--and saying prayers in school is teaching them.

Wrong again. A coach praying for the safety of his team and the safety of parents traveling is not teaching prayer.

The fact no one sued to stop the practice, and the issue of Constitutionality never was raised, before the 1970s, isn't relevant because the Court was never asked to rule on the issue.

Since it started at the beginning with the Founders condoning it and last for 200 years speaks for itself. This court will also likely rule differently…hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
When Lane talks about allowing prayer in schools, he should be honest enough to say he means Christian prayers. He doesn't include Buddhist prayers or Shinto prayers. Or any other than Christian prayers.

Do you enjoy being wrong Roland? I want the Feds to stay out of it and let local communities decide.
But local communities certainly can't be allowed to decide on the NEXT Amendment, can they?

I'm agnostic on the existence of God, but atheist on all religion. I don't want any prayers taught in school--and saying prayers in school is teaching them.

Wrong again. A coach praying for the safety of his team and the safety of parents traveling is not teaching prayer.
Would his prayer be less effective if he said it before he came to the school? Is your God really that petty that he would injure a child because of where a coach prayed from?

The fact no one sued to stop the practice, and the issue of Constitutionality never was raised, before the 1970s, isn't relevant because the Court was never asked to rule on the issue.

Since it started at the beginning with the Founders condoning it and last for 200 years speaks for itself. This court will also likely rule differently…hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
His son can pray at school right now.

The State bring the school simply cannot put its finger in the scale of what god, and what words the prayer is appropriate to.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The Constitution guarantees people the freedom of religion. It makes no statement guaranteeing freedom “from” religion…pre or post incorporation doctrine. The language simply doesn’t exist. Rulings on the matter in the 1970s were wrong…hopefully the current SCOTUS will get the opportunity to correct.

quote:

There is no way I can have freedom OF my religion if I don't have freedom FROM yours, and it runs both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
When Lane talks about allowing prayer in schools, he should be honest enough to say he means Christian prayers. He doesn't include Buddhist prayers or Shinto prayers. Or any other than Christian prayers.

Do you enjoy being wrong Roland? I want the Feds to stay out of it and let local communities decide.

I'm agnostic on the existence of God, but atheist on all religion. I don't want any prayers taught in school--and saying prayers in school is teaching them.

Wrong again. A coach praying for the safety of his team and the safety of parents traveling is not teaching prayer.

The fact no one sued to stop the practice, and the issue of Constitutionality never was raised, before the 1970s, isn't relevant because the Court was never asked to rule on the issue.

Since it started at the beginning with the Founders condoning it and last for 200 years speaks for itself. This court will also likely rule differently…hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The Constitution guarantees people the freedom of religion. It makes no statement guaranteeing freedom “from” religion…pre or post incorporation doctrine. The language simply doesn’t exist. Rulings on the matter in the 1970s were wrong…hopefully the current SCOTUS will get the opportunity to correct.

There is no way I can have freedom OF my religion if I don't have freedom FROM yours, and it runs both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
When Lane talks about allowing prayer in schools, he should be honest enough to say he means Christian prayers. He doesn't include Buddhist prayers or Shinto prayers. Or any other than Christian prayers.

Do you enjoy being wrong Roland? I want the Feds to stay out of it and let local communities decide.

I'm agnostic on the existence of God, but atheist on all religion. I don't want any prayers taught in school--and saying prayers in school is teaching them.

Wrong again. A coach praying for the safety of his team and the safety of parents traveling is not teaching prayer.

The fact no one sued to stop the practice, and the issue of Constitutionality never was raised, before the 1970s, isn't relevant because the Court was never asked to rule on the issue.

Since it started at the beginning with the Founders condoning it and last for 200 years speaks for itself. This court will also likely rule differently…hopefully.

I'm not wrong; you're just being disingenuous. You know damn well most US communities are dominated by Christians who couldn't care less about minority rights. Yes, you want the Christian majority to decide what prayers are said. Admit it.

Kids learn at school not merely by their formal lessons, but how the adults there model themselves. That's part of the learning environment. A coach that instructs the team in prayer certainly is teaching.

If you can predict how the current court will rule, you're doing better than most lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The Constitution guarantees people the freedom of religion. It makes no statement guaranteeing freedom “from” religion…pre or post incorporation doctrine. The language simply doesn’t exist. Rulings on the matter in the 1970s were wrong…hopefully the current SCOTUS will get the opportunity to correct.

There is no way I can have freedom OF my religion if I don't have freedom FROM yours, and it runs both ways.

Not even remotely true. It does require and was meant to promote tolerance.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Then why are you insisting that Lane practice your secular humanism?

When I was in school, I routinely had to sit through and be respectful of things I disagreed with. It neither changed my opinion nor made me feel like I needed to go to court to get them to shut up.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Depending on your interpretation of some of the bill of rights, sure.

Free association. Freedom of religion. Discrimination.

Let’s not even go in to some of the things that occurred in ROTC- you probably have a better idea than I what kind of things happen given you were active duty.

quote:

I believe the GOP is grounded in the Constitution

quote:

Let me exercise my religion without being imposed on by yours.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
In my mind the Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights, less government regulation, strong national defense, law and order, a balanced budget and as small a government as we can get away with.

They are supposedly pro states rights and individual rights.

They do have some areas of conflict where they have joined up with evangelical Christianity from their traditional support of freedom of (not from) religion.

When the GOP became the champions of pro life, the view of all their goals being equal became subsumed by the religious right crowd who are pro life Uber Alles.

Now that the SCOTUS has sent abortion back the states and subsequently to the Federal Legislature for written law…I believe you will see this issue dwindle in priority for the GOP.

I’m in the mushy middle with abortion, personally. I despise it, but feel that within some guidelines (much more stringent than the left is willing to tolerate) we must keep it legal and available- but it’s not an issue I’m all that willing to commit on as a reason for my political positions.

I am pretty close with you here.

I'm personally sick of my issues being compromised away for meaningless gains for the pro life crowd.

See above comment.

I do point out that one can take a view that the position on abortion contradicts all of the other tenets of conservatism and republican principles.

Yes, from the personal freedom side of the woman…I agree…and at one time due to this…I was pro-choice.

I flipped when I went through pregnancy with my wife and had my own child. I realized I was pro-choice for the wrong reason. Women can advocate for themselves. That in-utero child has no advocate other than the State. That child is the purest form of life…looking for nothing other than love and and to give love back. They are humans. They deserve the same rights as every other human…not to be treated as a cancer and thrown out with the trash.

Unfortunately for the leftists, in general every position they take I either disagree with or cannot go along with their extent and methods with regards to it.

100% for me.

So while I consider myself a republican, the party is doing its damnedest to drift away from me while the democrats have put themselves in overdrive away at the same time.

I am not willing to give up on what I ‘used to’ espouse as the Greatest Country on Earth. I see the GOP as the only remaining option. A place to work within to TRY to effect change in the correct direction. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. But I have learned from the Democrats. Stick together no matter what. Reagan was right with his 11th commandment.

Some here claim AOC and her ilk can be reasoned with. I see zero evidence of that. They are just media smoothed democrat versions of Boebert or MTG.