You have permission to speak, but don't expect your harangues to go unrebutted. You will, however, be given a pass for every post of one or fewer exclamation points, because there is goodness in my heart.
Posted on 08/12/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by DrMartinVonNostrand
I agree, that is the liberals' intent now.
But that was not the founders' intent at all. You have to beat the hell out of that sentence to come up with "Congress shall not respect religion" as its meaning.
You have permission to speak, but don't expect your harangues to go unrebutted. You will, however, be given a pass for every post of one or fewer exclamation points, because there is goodness in my heart.
....and then utter some catchy phrase written by his latest scriptwriter, such as "I'll be back" or "Hasta la vista, baby." This stuff is going to get old very soon!
I generally agree, but there are issues around the edges, like parental notification, state abortion funding, etc., that remain state issues, and require consideration.
Look to the aftermath of the LA riots. It didn't happen. They served not only for self defense but as a dterrent.
Now ask yourself this. What would have happened if they didn't have them?
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "involuntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954.
No it's not. It's destroying babies by the millions. Because of pro life activists nut jobs like me the country has become more pro life. The abortion issue is not a negative for Republicans, it is a net positive because on issues like parental notice, late term abortion and cloning the country is firmly on the pro life side of the divide.
In the first place, it is not a state issue anymore, it is federal, therefore it won't matter what the governor thinks about it as far as the laws are concerned.
No, parental rights are a state issue.
The A word needs to stop being a political issue because it is used against us to the detriment of the entire party.
See above.
I am pro life, but to me this is an issue of the heart and soul, and it won't go away until hearts are changed.
They are being changed but it hard work and hiding it in the attic with Uncle Festus doesn't change any hearts or minds.
We can't get judges or anything because of this, so it needs to be taken off the table until we can get people in place that can do something about it. Hope this makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean!
The anti life bigots on the judiciary committee are a reason to take the abortion issue off the table? Doesn't make sense to me.
No it's not. It's destroying babies by the millions. Because of pro life activists nut jobs like me the country has become more pro life. The abortion issue is not a negative for Republicans, it is a net positive because on issues like parental notice, late term abortion and cloning the country is firmly on the pro life side of the divide.
In the first place, it is not a state issue anymore, it is federal, therefore it won't matter what the governor thinks about it as far as the laws are concerned.
No, parental rights are a state issue.
The A word needs to stop being a political issue because it is used against us to the detriment of the entire party.
See above.
I am pro life, but to me this is an issue of the heart and soul, and it won't go away until hearts are changed.
They are being changed but it hard work and hiding it in the attic with Uncle Festus doesn't change any hearts or minds.
We can't get judges or anything because of this, so it needs to be taken off the table until we can get people in place that can do something about it. Hope this makes sense, not sure how to explain what I mean!
The anti life bigots on the judiciary committee are a reason to take the abortion issue off the table? Doesn't make sense to me.
To DrMartinVonNostrand: Please turn your head and cough.
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "involuntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954.
While we do have a few folks here that would qualify as polar opposites of MoveOn members, our entire Free Republic site is more balanced than that. There is constant friction here between the camps, though, as the hard-core conservatives are pulling the Republican Party as far right as possible and less hard-core conservatives don't appreciate being viciously insulted for not cooperating. It seems that there is a particular topic this tug-of-war takes place on every week and you've just had a bit of bad luck to stumble directly upon the current one.
You're welcome PKM. :-}
I might add that in several gated communites surrounding the area, several citizens manned barricades with the same weapons which dissuaded the bad guys from entering their community without a shot being fired.
That is completely beside the point, since the phrase "shall not respect/disprespect" does not appear in the first amendment.
It is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In this sentence "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the law, not the Congress. A law can do many things, but it cannot respect in the sense that you meant it. It can only respect as in pertain to, as regards, concern, etc.
Basically, Congress----->no law----->establishment of religion. It's so easy when you stick with the original meaning and not try to make it mean something else two centuries later.
Well let's start with the Pledge. Since 1948, the coerced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance has been Constitutionally forbidden.
Therefore, any recitation of the Pledge is voluntary.
Do you support the Ninth Circuits recent ruling, since withdrawn, ordering public schools to cease and desist from the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" included?
That is a strawman argument. I never said a thing about "voluntary" invocation in the "public square".
Here I thought we were discussing Governmental endorsement of a narrow religious set, as on Government buildings, on federal currency, and as shoved into the Pledge by Congress in 1954. ---------------------------------------
This is a repost since I mistakenly wrote "involuntary" on the original.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.