Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Human Rights-Now & in the Future Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

THE Human Rights-Now & in the Future Thread (merged)

Unread postby nero » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 01:43:03

I have read a couple of news articles recently about non leathal crowd control techniques being fast tracked by the American Military. They got me thinking about the freedoms we take for granted and the increasing ability for the state to control the people. Taking it a step further in light of the stresses on society due to peak oil perhaps we no longer have the luxury to allow these freedoms such as the freedom of expression, the right not to self incriminate, the right to privacy. Perhaps a capitalist/free economy isn't the best model to solve peak oil. Perhaps we need some communistic 5 year plans to enforce the sacrifice required to avoid a dieoff.

So tell me what you think. Which of the rights listed in the bill of rights will seem hopelessly archaic in 50 years?

freedom of religion?
freedom of assembly?
freedom of the press?
freedom of speech?
right to bear arms?
right to privacy in the home?
requirement of probable cause for search and seizure?
right to a jury of his peers?
right to compensation for property taken for the use of the government?
right not to bear witness against himself?
right to counsel?
right of a speedy and public trial?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 05 Aug 2009, 12:40:58, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Merge thread.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby Viper » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 02:11:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps a capitalist/free economy isn't the best model to solve peak oil. Perhaps we need some communistic 5 year plans to enforce the sacrifice required to avoid a dieoff.


Not a problem with changing the rules, but ONLY if I get to play Stalin in this new game.

Everybody always seems so ready to declare a monarchy until they realize that they don't get to be the king.

-Viper :twisted:
User avatar
Viper
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat 05 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: MO

Unread postby Guest » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 02:18:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen Revolution is the Only Answer
"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141

"We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will... The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." --Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792. ME 9:36

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto.

"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

"If the appeal to arms is made, it will depend entirely on the disposition of the army whether it issue in liberty or despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 1788.

"War... is not the most favorable moment for divesting the monarchy of power. On the contrary, it is the moment when the energy of a single hand shows itself in the most seducing form." --Thomas Jefferson to Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, 1788. ME 7:115

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1770.htm
Guest
 

Another Nero tries to fiddle with survival while oil burns

Unread postby Bandaid » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 02:32:33

Life is the highest value to me, and a close second is freedom. My reverence for freedom is based on its demonstrated value in furtherance of life.

Your suggestion that slavery should be instituted to help prevent a dieoff is both morally offensive and is just absurd. And yes you are suggesting slavery, the opposite of freedom, when you suggest that we do away with freedom.

The people of Cuba or the former Soviet Union are not somehow inferior people, yet they have achieved nothing much more than poverty under the imprisonment of their government planned economies. The history of the world has demonstrated that slavery brings economic stagnation, lack of innovation and considerable human suffering for the majority. The few brief periods where freedom has surfaced have been characterized by economic advance, innovation and an improvement of the human condition.

Do you think that these human vermin we call government can magically alter the fact that the world is grossly overpopulated and living on time borrowed from the stored remains of ancient sunlight? All that government can do is insure that those in power and their friends have a better chance of surviving the carnage and that the average man bears the brunt of the dieoff. You collectivist Canadians can lead yourselves down the path of such a demise, which I am sure you will, but I prefer the advantage of freedom to further my own survival.
Bandaid
 

Unread postby Matrim » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 03:52:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou collectivist Canadians can lead yourselves down the path of such a demise, which I am sure you will, but I prefer the advantage of freedom to further my own survival.


What's with the generalizations? As a whole Canadians have not rejected freedom anymore than Americans have. In fact from what I have observed (what with being Canadian and all) most Canadians would probably fight a lot harder for their freedom than you might think.

Heres a link about the canadian contribution to d-day:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/

Heres an interesting quote from that page:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ourteen thousand young Canadians stormed Juno Beach on D-Day. Their courage, determination and self-sacrifice were the immediate reasons for the success in those critical hours.



Anyway, getting back on topic, I doubt many Canadians would be for the ideas proposed by Nero (If indeed he was really proposing them as a solution, it seemed more of a what-if). Probably about as large a percentage as Americans who would be for this.


Anyway stop generalizing Dammit!! :-x

I personally hate it when I hear Canadians bash Americans just for being American (If they're ugly Americans though....... :) ) But it's a 2-sided coin, I don't want to hear how you think we're all a bunch of Tree-huggin commies either!
User avatar
Matrim
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby nero » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 04:22:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o you think that these human vermin we call government can magically alter the fact that the world is grossly overpopulated and living on time borrowed from the stored remains of ancient sunlight? All that government can do is insure that those in power and their friends have a better chance of surviving the carnage and that the average man bears the brunt of the dieoff. You collectivist Canadians can lead yourselves down the path of such a demise, which I am sure you will, but I prefer the advantage of freedom to further my own survival.


I think your point is a good one, that those with power use the power to ensure their own security. I think that it was ever thus. The reason why America has the current freedoms it has is because it is in the interests of the people in power that they have them. Ie. taking away the freedoms would be more difficult/cost more than it is worth. My point is that if the powers that be (PTB) recognize that the freedom to consume as much as you want is leading us collectively to destruction then it would certainly be in their interest to take that freedom away. Everybody (even us collectivist canadians :)) individualy prefer freedom, but sometimes we don't get that choice.

Right now in America (from what I can tell from the outside) the level of freedom is in a state of flux. The PTB are grabbing alot of freeedom away from the people in the interest of security and I don't see too much resistance to these reductions. In an economic crisis I expect that the government will pretty quickly step in and increase their control of the economy. Isn't that what happened in California when the deregulated electricity market failed to supply the power at a reasonable price.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Re: whither the bill of rights?

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 09:36:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'P')erhaps a capitalist/free economy isn't the best model to solve peak oil. Perhaps we need some communistic 5 year plans to enforce the sacrifice required to avoid a dieoff.


If you're going to go that far, why stop? You conscientiously list up all the rights which will be violated, except the most basic: "the right to live". Why not violate that one too?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Permanently_Baffled » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 10:10:17

Nero raises a good point , if the government doesn't intervene then the market will take away those freedoms anyway. A good example would be rationing. If the free market has its way gas will get too expensive for most people to afford, but if the product is rationed then everybody would at least get some at an affordable price. So in which of these scenarios do you have the most freedom?, the scenario where you get nothing , or the one where you get a ration. Imagine the same scenario but with food, can you realistically not intervene and let thousands starve while others consume there normal amounts just because of there wealth?

I don't see how PO will not mean more and more government intervention unfortunately....

Scary.... 8O

PB
User avatar
Permanently_Baffled
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: England

Amnesty slams U.S. on human rights

Unread postby khebab » Wed 25 May 2005, 14:07:09

Well, I guess it was expected.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')overnments are increasingly rolling back the rule of law, taking their cue from the U.S.-led war on terror, it said. "The USA as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power sets the tone for governmental behavior worldwide," Secretary General Irene Khan said in the foreword to Amnesty International's 2005 annual report. "When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity," she said.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The U.S. government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Convention and to 're-define' torture," she said, citing the secret detention of suspects and the practice of handing some over to countries where torture was not outlawed.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he increasingly blurred distinction between the war on terror and the war on drugs prompted governments across Latin America to use troops to tackle crimes traditionally handled by police, the report said.


src:cnn
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Unread postby heyhoser » Wed 25 May 2005, 14:08:35

It's not torture when we do it.
heyhoser
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Amnesty slams U.S. on human rights

Unread postby FoxV » Wed 25 May 2005, 14:43:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The U.S. government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Convention and to 're-define' torture," she said, citing the secret detention of suspects and the practice of handing some over to countries where torture was not outlawed.

Some Canadians have been hit with this. The most notable case; a Syrian born canadian was detained as a suspected terrorist. They shipped him off in the middle of the night to Syria (and we know how much the US loves Syria) before his lawyer could arrive in the morning.

While being tortured in Syria he ran into his Uncle (also with Canadian citizenship) who was similarly abducted 6 months earlier.

both were eventually returned to Canada with no charges, evidence or apologies from the US officials involved

Keep on rocking in the free world :roll:
Angry yet?
FoxV
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed 02 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Unread postby EddieB » Wed 25 May 2005, 15:59:42

As an American it is depressing to see how little my governement cares about citizens of other nations (let alone my fellow Americans). A perfect example of this occured during the anthrax scare back in 2001. Right before the anthrax spores hit the postal system and the Hart office building the US governement was standing firm on the side of drug companies claiming that "patents cannot be violated" in sub-Saharan nations that wanted to give AIDS victims retroviral inhibitors. Days after the anthrax scare began Tommy Thompson was on TV saying he'd break Bayer's patent on cipro unless they granted a reduced rate immediately... Yeah right, three american lives are worth more than how many million South Africans, Botswanians, Ugandans, Kenyans, etc.
User avatar
EddieB
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: BA PA USA

Unread postby MicroHydro » Wed 25 May 2005, 19:26:52

Hey, don't be glum, the USA is NUMBER ONE!

The USA has the highest number of people in prison per capita, (take that Cuba, Libya, Iran, Russia, South Africa). We also have the highest TOTAL number of people in prison. Yep, there are more Americans behind bars than Chinese or Indians. Gotta be proud. USA, USA, USA!
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby DomusAlbion » Wed 25 May 2005, 19:39:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MicroHydro', 'Y')ep, there are more Americans behind bars than Chinese


That's because the Chinese execute 10,000 of their prisoners per year.
"Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett

"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock
User avatar
DomusAlbion
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Beyond the Pale
Top

Unread postby AdzP » Thu 26 May 2005, 04:13:23

In France the prison population is 91 per 100,000
In UK its 120 per 100k.
In USA is 720 per 100k
and if you are a black male in their late twenties (25-30) in the USA its...12600 per 100k.
User avatar
AdzP
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

The Bill of Non-Rights

Unread postby k_semler » Thu 09 Jun 2005, 23:59:54

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye
from GA. This guy should run for President one day...

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby TRY ONE MORE TIME to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other
bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are
confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of
NON-Rights as such:

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any
other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them,
but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be
nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in
public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised
if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you
to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect
you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational
training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington

Heh.

Unread postby UIUCstudent01 » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 00:13:37

I agree with all of it except I have reservations for:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')RTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

It's true there are frivolous lawsuits like this. But they are in no way a epidemic as a lot of industry shills like for you to believe. And I think the really stupid ones usually get thrown out pretty fast.

Also:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')RTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

I hate the word heritage here. It's saying that just because something has always been done - it should be done that way. There are tons of state monuments that have got history totally wrong (See: Lies Across America by James Loewen). I would also like to add that this should also state that we are not to change basic founding principles such as the separation of Church and State. True believers do not want any religion being corrupted by the State. (And vice versa).
https://www.videogamevoters.org/ http://www.savetheinternet.com/ http://www.votersforpeace.us/index.jsp
www.911myths.com - To the 9/11-ers, give it some thought.
User avatar
UIUCstudent01
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Heh.

Unread postby k_semler » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 00:38:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UIUCstudent01', 'I') agree with all of it except I have reservations for:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')RTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

It's true there are frivolous lawsuits like this. But they are in no way a epidemic as a lot of industry shills like for you to believe. And I think the really stupid ones usually get thrown out pretty fast.


Two words: McDonald's Coffee

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('UIUCstudent01', 'A')lso:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')RTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

I hate the word heritage here. It's saying that just because something has always been done - it should be done that way. There are tons of state monuments that have got history totally wrong (See: Lies Across America by James Loewen). I would also like to add that this should also state that we are not to change basic founding principles such as the separation of Church and State. True believers do not want any religion being corrupted by the State. (And vice versa).


The words "Seperation of Church and State" do not appear anywhere in the Constituion, or bill of rights. Yes, they cannot officially establish a religion as the Official Religion, but there is no obligation to shield from religion. The first amendment reaffirms freedom OF relition, not freedom FROM religion. It goes back to not having a right not to be offended. If something offends you, divert your eyes, or don't listen to it anymore. If I want to shout at the top of my lungs that "Jesus is the awnser", but you are offended, simply leave. You have no obligation to listen to me, and I have no right to force you to listen to me either. (freedom of association).

Although, I do believe that there should be no endorsement of religion on behalf of the government, which is exactly what the first amendment prohibits, and no religion should be banned either. If you want to worship magical ferries that gave birth to all life out of thier anus, have fun doing it. Just don't cram it down my throat, and if you get laughed at for it, don't expect the person laughing to be silenced. (once again, no right to no offence.)
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Top

Unread postby Colorado-Valley » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 00:58:33

I wonder if this guy gets free government health care.
User avatar
Colorado-Valley
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby UIUCstudent01 » Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:41:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')wo words: McDonald's Coffee

A special case that got media attention. The coffee was EXTREMELY, and unreasonably, hot. I haven't looked at the case - but from someone who did, he said that was the point of the prosecution. I also heard that there was some more to the trial, but I'm not quite sure. Either way, there are not very much of those cases. But there are 1000's of other cases where companies are at fault because of the cost-benefit analysis AND capping damages for such only breeds that kind of thinking even more.

(I.E. We can dump this mercury waste at Rolling Hills which would leak to this subdivisions water supply, but at most they could only sue us for X amount. But we save Y. Y > X, and so the company has the legal obligation to take that action.)

I'm just saying it's not an epidemic as industries would like you to believe. Tort reform is bad. Capping damages is bad against companies. (Doctors are different though. They don't exactly mean to do bad things - for many are overworked.)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The first amendment reaffirms freedom OF relition, not freedom FROM religion. It goes back to not having a right not to be offended. If something offends you, divert your eyes, or don't listen to it anymore. If I want to shout at the top of my lungs that "Jesus is the awnser", but you are offended, simply leave. You have no obligation to listen to me, and I have no right to force you to listen to me either. (freedom of association).

I don't see why you are responding with this with what I said. It's like you're responding to me as if I were an athiest arguing that you can't preach it to me, but what I'm saying is pretty your exact words:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lthough, I do believe that there should be no endorsement of religion on behalf of the government, which is exactly what the first amendment prohibits, and no religion should be banned either. If you want to worship magical ferries that gave birth to all life out of thier anus, have fun doing it. Just don't cram it down my throat, and if you get laughed at for it, don't expect the person laughing to be silenced. (once again, no right to no offence.)


Unless of course, all you meant to respond directly to me was your first sentence about Church and state being separated.. then went on with your usual religio-conservative talking points... (not to belittle you. But essentially your arguments have been rehashed over and over.)

I'm saying I don't like the reason of 'heritage' to be a reason for stuff, you know, for being there. There are other reasons. You may be refering to this whole fiasco summed up here at CBSNews.com

I like the quote at the end:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Under a strict separation of church and state, even this type of endorsement of religion would not stand," says Rob Boston of the Washington-based group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "But the courts have never adopted a standard that strict. They have always carved out an exemption for certain types of civil religion, and this is another example of that."

He adds, "We haven't been involved in a case like this or taken any of them on simply because it is usually an exercise in futility. The courts aren't going to declare something like this unconstitutional."

Nit-picking on strictness isn't cool. But anything more is not really welcome - like putting the 10 Commandments in schools: which is an 'exercise of futility' as well.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') wonder if this guy gets free government health care.
Nope, not Canadian. I'm an evil-commie-liberal-leftist-Un-American Scumbag according to Freepers. So in a worldly stance, that makes me a moderate. Too many times though, I find too many people lying. I wish there were a viable third party in the U.S. Seriously - the elections were a joke even if they weren't fixed.
https://www.videogamevoters.org/ http://www.savetheinternet.com/ http://www.votersforpeace.us/index.jsp
www.911myths.com - To the 9/11-ers, give it some thought.
User avatar
UIUCstudent01
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests