Latest from the Supreme Clowns
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1910) 7 years ago
Oy, vey. End of the United States Constitution as I knew it.
Top
Posted by Tomm (-1028) 7 years ago
What did Obama do now?
Top
Posted by Dr Mac (+82) 7 years ago
I am puzzled by what constitution you are referring to? Maybe you are referring to some of the aggressively out-of-sync, politically correct in your opinion rulings particularly of the lower courts. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The ruling today does not prohibit the free exercise thereof and seems right on target. Maybe you should read a little about constitutional history as I did in college and in my adulthood to understand what our founders meant. For example, see Jefferson's "Establishing a Federal Republic."
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Dr Mac,
For example, see Jefferson's "Establishing a Federal Republic


Oh no, now you've opened the can of worms, Congress has been manipulating the government funded education system for so many years now, that people no longer recognize the truth, and think we are a socialistic democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic.

I wonder how the PTB will try to hide Article 4 Section 4 of our US Constitution, where it proclaims that a Republican Form(Representative Republic) of Government is guarantied to the Citizens of the United States. Not a socialistic democracy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
So when the wiccans want to start a city council meeting by giving praise to the earth mother or whatnot, you're totally cool with that?

I would find that hard to believe.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Bridgier,

So when the wiccans want to start a city council meeting by giving praise to the earth mother or whatnot, you're totally cool with that?

I would find that hard to believe.


Are you saying that the voters elected a bunch of wiccans?

If so, then the community that voted them in would most likely appreciate the council meetings starting with a wiccan prayer.

If you are not saying that the community elected a bunch of wiccans to the city council, then why twist the issue by bringing irrelevant information into the discussion?

I have yet to find any municipal body that will permit someone not charged with conduct of the proceedings, to determine what the agenda will be. So, if that person who was charged by the City Council presents the agenda as it is desired by the council, it can include a pre-meeting prayer or invocation, but again, that would be a decision made by someone on -- or responsible to, the council.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
So, whomever is in the majority gets to determine what the established religion is?
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1910) 7 years ago
That's the 'Murican way!
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
by Bridgier,
So, whomever is in the majority gets to determine what the established religion is?

To establish a preference for or to restrict the practice of a religion would be a violation of Our Constitution. Which is exactly what Our SCOTUS has reaffirmed.
Far too many people wish to view things as being a process of simple majorities to reduce our Society to a Democracy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not fully up on the electoral process in MT yet, but looking at our US Constitution, a simple majority/democracy is not what our Government is fashioned after. A bill passed in the house does not automatically become law. It also has to pass the Senate, but it still does not automatically become law. That in and of itself should be enough for most to understand that we are not a democracy. So, let us look at the requirements to amend our US Constitution. It is not a simple majority vote. It requires what I will refer to as a major majority (two-thirds vote) for in both houses of our Congress just to send it out to the People/States for ratification. And again a simple majority will not make it an amendment, it requires a super majority (three-fourths) vote for to ratify. More proof that we are not the Democracy our leaders perpetrate upon those who do not know well enough to know better.
That was just citing our Federal Government. There are many instances here in Washington State (due to how the constitution of Washington State was written, that measures require at least 60% of the total registered voters just to cast ballots before a decision on that measure will be valid. Then there are others that like our US super majority, require three-fourths affirmative votes to pass the measure. More indications that we do not live in a Democracy. So, no, the majority frequently does not rule.
So, no, the majority of the council merely gets to determine if a prayer will be a part of the pre-meeting agenda. Since that majority was elected to represent the community, then if they were to do something that violated the will of the voters/people being represented, then they would be committing political suicide.
It really is a shame that some people are so hateful that they would intentionally try to circumvent the principals our Founding Fathers built our great Country on, by attempting to misdirect, mislead, or misinterpret what is being/has been said.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2618) 7 years ago
This is just the first step in the government telling you how you can worship.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 7 years ago
Bridger:

"So, whomever is in the majority gets to determine what the established religion is?"

If you had read the facts of the case, you would know that the Greece, NY City Council had an open invitation to "all faiths" to participate and more than just Christians did. I assume if the Wiccans had asked to offer a prayer with their clothes on, not have sex and not sacrifice any living thing, they would have been treated like everyone else. If your "religion" requires you to be naked, have sex or kill something at a public meeting, there are some complicating Social Mores issues of acceptable behavior, that may transcend "rights".

As for the Athiests....by definition, that's not a religion or a "faith", is it? They don't have any "prayers" to offer, so they can't be denied. Athiests get 5 minutes to prothelytize if they sign up for the public input session, just like everyone else.

Donald, you are wasting the keyboarding on some of those here. They believe the Constitution, and their presence, provides them with Freedom FROM religion and Freedom FROM speech. The only way they would ever agree with you is, to agree with them or shut up.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9973) 7 years ago
Why can't we just keep religion and government separate?
Top
Posted by Dr Mac (+82) 7 years ago
Well, no where in the constitution does it state there should be a separation of government and religion. If that is what one wants, consider moving to India or Singapore, where such separation is mandated.

[This message has been edited by Dr Mac (5/6/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14728) 7 years ago
I don't know... since St Ronny was President, there has been a huge increase in the amount of public prayer and government just seems to get dumber and more unreasonable. So maybe we should go without it for a while and see what happens.
Top
Posted by Dr Mac (+82) 7 years ago
On one hand, sounds like a reasonable experiment, but then on the other hand, I am a chicken to even suggest!
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9973) 7 years ago
Dr Mac wrote:
Well, no where in the constitution does it state there should be a separation of government and religion. If that is what one wants, consider moving to India or Singapore, where such separation is mandated.


Wikipedia wrote:
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams — who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" — Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Oddjob,
Donald, you are wasting the keyboarding on some of those here. They believe the Constitution, and their presence, provides them with Freedom FROM religion and Freedom FROM speech. The only way they would ever agree with you is, to agree with them or shut up.


Now that is funny, eventually you will know me and anyone who knows me well, knows that the only way I will agree with someone generally, is when they can prove that their views/understandings are either 100% correct or happen to match mine without fail.

As far as my shutting up goes, that does happen on occasion, mostly when it becomes clear that I am having a battle of wits with those who come unarmed -- no fun in continuing, or when my time, fingers, or voice is required or clearly becomes more useful elsewhere.

I do find it shameful how many will demand their freedoms and then disparage the document that attempts to protect those unalienable freedoms and rights. Without it, we would most likely be another Ukraine, being torn apart by outside influences, and then forced to accept the will of the PTB.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
I believe that civil religion is poisonous to both the honest expression of religious sentiment and to the conscience of those who don't believe in whatever creed is being forced into the public square.

Look, these cases end up being argued the same way, that this particular sectarian expression is offered in a merely ceremonial way, that it doesn't really mean anything, or that the word 'GOD' is merely a placeholder for whatever the hearer may or may not believe, etc, etc, etc.

Which makes the people foisting the prayers in the first place LIARS, because OF COURSE they believe that the words that they're saying MEAN something.

If you can find it, you may find the essay on civil religion contained in Yoder's Priestly Kingdom to be illuminating: https://www.goodreads.com...ly_Kingdom

Be honest in your beliefs, and let others be honest in theirs. Don't be a prick about it, because that just pisses off the Baby Jesus.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
Since the edit feature is no longer available on my post to Bridgier, on Tue May 6 3:11:53 PM MDT (UTC-6) 2014

Let me say, I had intended to show how in our form of Government a minority can rule which, again shows that we are not a Democracy.

I don’t have the time to give more than just one example right now. But most reasonably educated people will be able to visualize additional scenarios that would fit, once they understand the concept.

If you were to take my reference to how some measures require 60% of the total registered voters to cast a ballot, and then consider how usually - not always, just over 50% of the ballots cast must be “for” to pass the measure, then you should be able to comprehend how a minority of the populace can rule. To give grasp-ability to those who are lost, let me use a total registered voter base of 1,000 and 62% actually cast ballots. That equates to 620 voters voting! Now, if the measure passes with 50.16% of the vote, then only 311 votes were cast in favor of the measure. Therefore 31.1% of registered voters in that precinct passed that measure. Clearly that is a case of Minority rules.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16669) 7 years ago
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — In what legal experts are calling a landmark decision, on Monday the United States Supreme Court struck down what many believe to be the main reason the country was started.

By a five-to-four vote, the Court eliminated what grade-school children have traditionally been taught was one of the key rationales for founding the United States in the first place.

“The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American democracy for over two hundred years,” said Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority. “Getting rid of it was long overdue.”

Calling the decision “historic,” Justice Antonin Scalia was guarded in predicting what the Court might accomplish next.

“Last year, we gutted the Voting Rights Act, and today we did the First Amendment,” he said. “We’ll just have to see what’s left.”


http://www.newyorker.com/...arted.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Yes Donald, I'm aware of how our American system of government works.

Here's an example of how civil religion poisons everything.

Once upon a time, the city of boise had a monument to the 10 commandments in one of its public parks, and some dirty athiest came along and said "I don't want my tax dollars going to the upkeep and maintenance of a sectarian display on public property" A hue and cry was raised, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth upon both sides.

The local Episcopalian church stepped in and said "We'll take that monument, which sits in a mostly ignored and very secluded corner of the park and put it on OUR property, on a main street in downtown boise, right across from the capital building, where everyone can see it prominently displayed.

You might think that this was a GREAT solution, because it would be, as the kids say, a 'win-win'. Alas no, this was not enough for the most bothersome of the god-botherers, because if it wasn't on public land then the whole thing was ruined, just ruined and it would be as though the mayor of boise was spitting on Jesus. Or something.

Forcing people to pray with you because you can is a dick move, and it cheapens whatever it is you believe in. Convince me that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior by the fruits of your life, not by forcing me to sit through your prayers before I can participate in the peoples business.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (5/7/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Indeed, it's already begun:


Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”


http://www.roanoke.com/ne...l?mode=jqm
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1910) 7 years ago
As I recall, that Jesus fellow was opposed to public displays of prayer. But then, many "christians" try to avoid following the actual teachings of that fellow, because he was all 'poverty' and 'helping others' and 'no remarriage after divorce' and never mentioned gays or abortion at all.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity.

The court said in 5-4 decision Monday that the content of the prayers is not critical as long as officials make a good-faith effort at inclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/newsho...l-meetings


After reading what little The Borowitz Report actually included, I found myself laughing almost incessantly.

EDIT I decided it best to just post a link to the actual SCOTUS report.

Please pay close attention to Concurrence's and the Dissents.
http://www.law.cornell.ed...xt/12-696

Neither Justice said what the Borowitz Report claimed. Goes to show the power and effect of twisting or misrepresenting things. Maybe a few will begin to understand why I was laughing so hard.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (5/7/2014)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2500) 7 years ago
What's that about public displays of prayer? I don't think Congress got that memo.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Strange that Donald doesn't seem interested in engaging any of my arguments.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Bridgier,

Strange that Donald doesn't seem interested in engaging any of my arguments.

Have you said anything worthy of a response? Or have you merely found unreliable rhetoric to spew? Example, where in any SCOTUS case did/was a Bedrosian argued, quoted, or cited?

I will even provide you a link to the SCOTUS website for you to find what you are implying.

http://www.supremecourt.gov
also posted by Bridgier,
Forcing people to pray with you because you can is a dick move, and it cheapens whatever it is you believe in. Convince me that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior by the fruits of your life, not by forcing me to sit through your prayers before I can participate in the peoples business.


Where is it shown that in the case of TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK v. GALLOWAY ET AL, that anyone was forced to pray? Galloway ET AL were upset that they had to listen to what more often than not ended up being Christian in nature. That was not the fault of the City of Greece, that was the fault of the various clergy turning down invitations to provide prayer or an invocation at the beginning of each of the meetings.

Please remember, I will frequently ignore intellectual discourse or debates when my opponents clearly enter unarmed.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (5/7/2014)]
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16506) 7 years ago
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+790) 7 years ago
Bridgier, Keep it going. I enjoy your pot shots. I don't think there is any thing to which they could respond because it shakes their belief system.

[This message has been edited by Elizabeth Emilsson (5/7/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Please remember, I will frequently ignore intellectual discourse or debates when my opponents clearly enter unarmed.

Duly noted. I will try and tighten my tricorn, that we may duel as equals. Or something.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
I will apologize for not quoting right now I am on my phone at Class. Midterms week is upon me. I will drop in as I can.
Cheers to all
Don
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Bridgier,
Look, these cases end up being argued the same way, that this particular sectarian expression is offered in a merely ceremonial way, that it doesn't really mean anything, or that the word 'GOD' is merely a placeholder for whatever the hearer may or may not believe, etc, etc, etc.

Which makes the people foisting the prayers in the first place LIARS, because OF COURSE they believe that the words that they're saying MEAN something.

If you can find it, you may find the essay on civil religion contained in Yoder's Priestly Kingdom to be illuminating: https://www.goodreads.co...y_Kingdom

Be honest in your beliefs, and let others be honest in theirs. Don't be a prick about it, because that just pisses off the Baby Jesus.

Your post presents a prime example of why theology is not a topic I feel can rationally be argued.
Each person will feel or understand -- interpret, their beliefs and understandings in differing ways.
That does not mean that because their interpretation differs from others, that they are being dishonest in any way, it simply means they understand or view it differently from others.
When I was growing up, my folks (who were of two differing denominations) would take my brother and I to different churches around town to expose us to religion. They always instilled in us that, a person who is good of heart and mind, need not be a devout Catholic, Christian, etc., or even attend church services every Sunday, that the house of God truly existed within our own hearts and minds.
While I served my Country to protect our Freedoms, the Chaplin giving service may have been of most any faith or denomination, it did not matter, as I used the fellowship of my compadre’s as a form of relieve from my own hurts and doubts. I reveled in the fact that their beliefs might be different from mine as that provided proof that what I was fighting for was just and right.
Since retiring from Military Service, I continue my fight to protect our freedoms from those who would disparage or infringe upon them.
How many others here would agree in the basic principle that, our having the ability to exercise our personal religious beliefs -- as long as we are not forcing ourselves upon others, and being free of prejudicial restraints and/or comments of being lairs, is a sacred Freedom that we should all cherish and rejoice in! Not use or have used on us, to disparage or insult others or ourselves.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (5/9/2014)]
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+618) 7 years ago
Donald wrote:
Where is it shown that in the case of TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK v. GALLOWAY ET AL, that anyone was forced to pray? Galloway ET AL were upset that they had to listen to what more often than not ended up being Christian in nature. That was not the fault of the City of Greece, that was the fault of the various clergy turning down invitations to provide prayer or an invocation at the beginning of each of the meetings.


Do you suppose that this sort of reception by militant Christians, even in the U.S. Senate chamber, might have something to do with declined invitations?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
You are one really confused dude, that's all I can say.

I reveled in the fact that their beliefs might be different from mine as that provided proof that what I was fighting for was just and right.


I think you should ponder this some more.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+9973) 7 years ago
And here you go, this is what happens when church and state aren't separated. Let the circus begin. :facepalm:

Huffington Post wrote:
Just three days after the Supreme Court ruled that sectarian legislative prayer was constitutional in Greece v. Galloway, a man in Deerfield Beach, Florida, requested to open a session of the town council or the Florida State Senate with a Satanic prayer, reports 12 News.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost...96409.html
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16506) 7 years ago
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Bridgier,

You are one really confused dude, that's all I can say.


What is so confusing about relishing and rejoicing in the little things that prove true freedom exists?

Or, are you one of the believe as I do, or perish type of people?

Maybe you are wishing that the Old Russian empire under Marx or Lennon still existed so you could be told how to live? You do realize that, there are countries on this globe, where you can enjoy that type of governance, don't you?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Joe Whalen,
Do you suppose that this sort of reception by militant Christians, even in the U.S. Senate chamber, might have something to do with declined invitations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh9cjUv9XgY&feature=player_embedded


That could possibly be one explanation. It could also possibly be due to many feeling that Our Government -- Read that as SCOTUS, previously had ruled against prayer in Public Schools, so they somewhat felt that by participating in a prayer at a Public Meeting, they would be violating a law or risking ridicule not for their theology, but for a misperceived unlawful action.

Look at how folks on this very board tend to show indifference to those who do not believe as they do. In some cases, I would class that indifference as bordering on the extreme.

There are fanatics in all ideologies or theologies, people may wish to consider me as being one for my insistence that our Government has strayed greatly from what the People of the United States intended when nine of our original 13 States initially ratified our Constitution. I prefer to consider myself as someone who is striving to enlighten others to the abuses being committed upon them by our Government. If that makes me fanatical, so be it. I will gladly join the ranks of Patriots and Educators who would also fall into that classification, simply for speaking the truth.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11447) 7 years ago
I didn't know Lennon was involved in the USSR, beyond singing about it.

Corporations are people.

Money is speech.

We are a "christian" nation.

What happened to the good ol' USA I grew up in?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 7 years ago
"What happened to the good ol' USA I grew up in?"

The good ol' USA that poured drafted American blood all over Southeast Asia?

That USA, Amorette? Or did you grow up in a bubble?

As I remember, LBJ lied and Americans died.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 7 years ago
posted by Amorette Allison,
I didn't know Lennon was involved in the USSR, beyond singing about it.


So I misspelled Vladimir Lenin’s last name by spelling it like one of the Beatles. That does not change the historical significance.

Though many in our Congress and our Government attempt to do just that constantly, meaning revise or rewrite history though the power of Government grants.

Anyone remember the commercials with the funny guy dressed in a suit with question marks all over it, who was promising to sell you information on how to obtain Government Cash, even to write a book.

Well, guess what, old news, our Congress has been doing that for many decades before his get rich scheme was put on the television. I learned back when I was in elementary school just how effective their actions were. Think about how Congress could pay an Author to write a textbook to their standards and then would pay the author when it suited them. Then when schools would request money for new textbooks, the States or school districts were given a list of approved books that they could purchase with the funds being provided, and if they purchased outside of that list, they would have to reimburse that funding. Can anyone guess which books would be on that approved list? With so many States relying on Federal Educational funding, it does not take long before the truth itself becomes fuzzy, lies are touted as truth and seem clear, and therefore become the new truth. Just like how the event(s) known as the Holocaust are being rewritten into something that makes them resemble an elaborate fairy tale.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Thank goodness for Common Core.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 7 years ago
Don Lennon wrote:
Please remember, I will frequently ignore intellectual discourse or debates when my opponents clearly enter unarmed.



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1910) 7 years ago
Cheney lied and thousands died. That isn't the point. The point it, the current Supreme Court has been shredding the Constitution.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 7 years ago
"The point it, the current Supreme Court has been shredding the Constitution."

I agree. They should string John Roberts up in the public square for his ruling on Obamacare.....

You win some, lose some, cupcake.

It's the harbinger of that great "Democracy" you have such angst to see implemented......
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 7 years ago
Don't worry your pretty little head about it, cupcake.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 7 years ago
Random Task wrote:
I agree. They should string John Roberts up in the public square for his ruling on Obamacare.....



Blame it on the Heritage Foundation and Willard Romney, bitch.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1486) 7 years ago
Top