Posted on 12/09/2004 12:52:41 AM PST by ajolympian2004
In Estes Park, there's discomfort on all political sides that the flap over a town trustee's refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance is redefining the community.
"Estes Park is becoming known as a town that wants to recall someone instead of as a tourist attraction," said Linda Wagner, a 12-year resident.
If you think the Christian people of this blessed nation are coming to marginalize or censure you, you ARE a rambling nutbar.
See reply #38.
Doesn't it help that I said it with a smile? ;)
That's perhaps the most unamerican idea I've ever read on Free Republic. Now it's ok to "enforce" religious observance. So much for the supposedly unalienable right of a man to hold his own conscience eh?
' have these paranoid fears that vindictive theists want to burn me and those who believe like me at the stake, even if metaphorically.'
Geez, can you be a bigger drama queen or pansy?
Ever since the election I'm seeing more of a backlash against the ACLU more.. It seems that that ACLU does not get the message.
Read the constitution. Not only is it an American idea for locals to control their own communities but it is a constitutionally protected idea. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."
Please, please, please live in Texas.
Prohibiting the free exercise of, which you chose to highlight has nothing whatsoever with coercing belief. That's not belief pal.
'Please, please, please live in Texas.'
Why, is it easier to burn metaphorical stakes there? 'Please, please, please' as I said Drama Queen or pansy.
There is a section of the pledge I choose NOT to say, because I disagree with it, (NOT the "under God portion, by the way), and I have had folks give me a dirty look. A pledge is an OATH, as far as I am concerned. If he doesn't choose to say it, then I say he that right. Turning his back on the flag however, is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE!
The writer of the pledge was a socialist pig, and I really wish we had some kind of pledge more appropriate.
(Ducking for cover)
Thanks for the ping!
If I, and a number of people who follow the same religion as I, set up a community where everyone must be of the same religion (say by forbidding the sale of property to pagans and heretics etc) and by requiring people to maintain their souls in good standing in the church in order to stay in the community. Then (as long as we are not breaking other laws such as ritual human sacrifice etc) no one has any right to interfere with the practice of our religion. We would not be violating anyone's rights or infringing on their liberties.
They can always choose to live elsewhere. We would not be coercing belief in any way. If you want to live in our community live by the accepted rules.
I find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal gov any say in how we run our local affairs.
Now of course the state or county may have something to say about it but we are protected from federal interference.
And while I am not part of such a community I see nothing wrong with people living according to their own rules as long as those rules do not violate constitutional requirements
[I see this as very similar to that community in Georgia where gun ownership is mandatory]
You're correct, my oversight.
But in my defense, I was outraged and typing in a fury at the time :-)
The hell with property rights eh? Sounds like your little community is emminent domain on steriods, seizing property left and right for the community good.
[I see this as very similar to that community in Georgia where gun ownership is mandatory]
Which is in itself wildly amusing, since that community doesn't see it your way. You're referring to Kenneshaw, Georgia. The ordinance in Kennesahw was written with the express intention (which was stated publically) that it would NEVER be enforced. That those who chose not to own guns would not be harrassed in any way. It was meant from the git-go to be a purely symbolic gesture.
Sorry about part of my last message. I thought I'd quoted you, but part of another message on another thread was still in my buffer. However, the party about Kenneshaw was on target.
If you buy the property with covenants and restrictions on it then you are expected to live up to that part of the contract. If you don't want to accept the contract live elsewhere. It's not a matter of seizing property, it's a matter of enforcing what you want done with your property.
The community would have to own the entire property before it could be set up however. So if one person bought, say, 1000 acres and then parcelled it off to form the community I see nothing wrong with it.
Of course if they moved into an area and tried to take it over that would be wrong (unless they properly, legally morally and ethically bought out everyone who chose to sell and then imposed the covenants on those properties, all the while respecting the rights of those who were there first and did not choose to sell)
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.
