Why do the ritors ask for Justice?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well given the nature and substance of the first amendment, I'd consider the 1950's insertion of "one nation under god" to be treasonous, along with any oaths used in wtate ceremonies which explicitly reference a deity (eg so help me god). The most defining characteristic of the US constitution, what makes a unique document is the idea it introduces that the state should be secular and that no religion should influence the way the state does business. Every country prior to this date (including the US under the articles of confederation) tied itself to a particular idea of the "divine".

The USA has lost something major with its retreat into narrow, grandiose and bigoted religiosity since the start of the cold war.

The first amendment guaranty's the free practice of religion sport, not freedom from religion.

The rallying cry of the American Taliban.  

Meaning if the law makes of 1960 decided to incorporate an declaration of alliance to God they were free to do so.

Let look at the wording again:
to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

Yes...lets....

So again congress can not pass a law that makes any one religion a state sanctioned religion.

uh huh....

That said

-snipped because LOL

Oh goodie, -immediate- exceptions to the reading offered in the very sentence that preceded them.  

(and history points out) nothing prevents members of government can't personally endorse what they believe.

Endorse away, no one's looking to stop you.

Which is also protected by the second sentence of the first amendment. to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,

....it sure does....

"impeding the free exercise of religion,"

it sure -doesn't-..go, go and sacrifice a maiden to your god in a holy place.....explain, to police, that you were just excercising your constitutionally guaranteed rights.  

To prohibit, a formal deceleration of allegiance to God is again impeding the free exercise of religion.

-You- are free to do so all you wish, our government is not, because it's a secular government....and that's to your great benefit as a member of yall qaeda, whether you realize it or not.

[KevinM1]

I guess the real question is, what does Drich mean by 'formal declaration'?

Anyone can declare they're a member of any religion or not (although, being an avowed Muslim or atheist is political suicide).  That was Ben Carson's and Ted Cruz's political strategy - cozy up to evangelicals.

What can't happen is any formal - as in governmental - declaration of allegiance to any particular god, even something as broad as the Judeo-Christian god.  This is a secular nation.  Always has been.

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1404163' dateline='1475096677']
And again, I said you can not alpha a cop. Meaning you can not intimidate your way out of being arrested. You can't fight your way out of being arrested. Again If a cop has it in his mind you are going to be arrested then that is what will happen.

And again what you do not seem to still understand is that being arrested does not automatically mean you are guilty of a crime or need to goto jail.

To directly answer your question these men were released because the charges were dropped by the person who filed them or were dropped by someone in a police station or someone like the DA who works with them.


Now the part that you don't seem to get is I am saying if a cop has it in his mind you need to be taken into custody then either he or the army of police standing behind him is going to arrest or kill you. So there is no point in fighting. Now does being taken in mean your going to jail? No. It simply is the start of the 'due process' you are entitled to as a citizen. If their was a procedural or it is determined the wrong person was detained mistake made then more than likely (if they can admit it) then by this 'due process' you will be kicked/let go. I can only assume as I have no way to verify that they were indeed let go that it is because of due process. However in the case of your fan fiction, you can create your own narrative as to the reason why he was let go as that was not even a real arrest.

So again, the short answer is the reason people are let go after being arrested with no trial... the answer is "due process of the law." And arrest does not = a conviction. Only a moron thinks that just because one is arrested that means he is automatically going to jail.


What's up with all the filibustering? You typed all that without answering anything.

If you could be bother to read what i wrote you will see i did indeed take alot of time answering each and every question you brought up.

You seem to be ignoring facts that critically wound your argument.

Perhaps since i spend so much time breaking down your argument and going point by point showing just how and why you are wrong, you could do the same. rather than making sweeping generalizations like the lazy atheists do.

It is YOUR position that you should NEVER resist arrest, correct?

yes

My point is if that is true, Then why were the assault, and resisting arrest charges dropped on the 2 men when they clearly were on video fighting with cops?

let's try something different since you seem to be going blind to facts on me..

1) show proof that these were even legit arrests.
2) Show that charges were dismissed.

Once you show me some paper work, I can then show you why it was deem ok that these two were let go. (If that did indeed happen)

Or you can google "due process of the Law" for yourself.

Again, you seem to be blocking out all knowledge of this term. But that is why it is never ok to resist and yet people do get set free.

They weren't set free because the resisted I can assure you. they were set free because Due process probably showed the arrest to be bad. Which again is not for you to determine, like it was not up to those guy to determine this either. DUE PROCESS determined this.

I didn't ask WHO dropped the charges, I want to know WHY they were dropped when the men WERE CLEARLY CAUGHT ASSAULTING COP ON VIDEO, got it? Are you saying the prosecutor dropped the charges out of the goodness of her heart?

And I am saying everything you say here is simple minded speculation. How do I know you did not just yank to random you tube videos and create a narritive you change to support your arguement no matter what I say?

Again proof, proof, proof so me some proof.

Also why did the city of Detroit pay out $120,000 to these men after they clearly resisted arrest?

Again proof, proof, proof so me some proof.

It would seem the "governing authorities" found that they did nothing wrong by resisting an unlawful arrest, correct?

According to your narrative..

So Again proof, proof, proof so me some proof.

And I can tell you exactly why they were released.

Huggs I do respect you but this is the dumbest thing you've ever said.
James Holems did not point his gun at cops. When confronted by cops he complied and was taken peacefully...

So why is this the single dumbest thing you've ever said?

Because your an idiot if you think tamir or James' crimes had ANYTHING to do with their outcomes.

Tamir died because the cop thought he was going to be shot/killed by a 1911 .45 semi automatic.

James lived because he folded like a house of cards. when he was told to do X he did not scream at the cops he did not pull a gun from his belt. He did what he was told when he was told.

That is my whole point. Let the cops have control of the situation and even if you are arrested you will live. Fight a cop go for a gun (real or not) and you die.

Why is it 95% of the population understands this, and 5% think this is too much to ask?

Again, dylan did what he was told when he was told.. Cops are not judges their primary job is to make an arrest. if you will not allow them to arrest you they are to subdue you. If you will not be subued or threaten their lives then they are to take you by force NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ORIGINAL CRIME IS. However if you comply then they Must take you alive. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR CRIME IS!

That is why those murders lived and Tamir died.

So are you off the idea that the bible says we are to resist arrest? Did Jesus' example/submission to Authorities despite their authority over you, show you that your position (that it is ok to resist police if you are innocent/right are violated) is wrong/unchristian?

*emphasis mine*

Oh so what you're saying is that James Holmes and Dylan Roof were given an opportunity to surrender, correct?

Are you saying ALL the black men shot by cop were not given the chance to surrender? I looked at the last 5 videos and every single one the black guy is running or fighting with the cops... Again the two white boys did everything they were told when they were told that is the only reason the lived. You put either one of these two murders infront of a cop pulling a gun from their belt or pointing one at a cop they are dead.

Show me in this video where Tamir pulled out his gun and screamed at the cops, or had any opportunity to surrender for that matter.

1:15 to 1:25 point the gun at a passer by
4:32 4:50 point gun at something/someone off camera seems to have some words/gustures.
8:32 tamir jacket goes up where he has the gun tucked in the waist ban.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know what I'm starting to wonder?  Why, when so many people's "deeply held religious beliefs" start tumbling down on the shitty side of the law...those same believers start to think that maybe..maybe...somethings wrong with the government.....?

[Drich]

Question is, will the liberals be siding with those who have no respect for law and order and take what they please, or will they be begging on their knees for law and order to be restored? I know the response even if it doesn't happen, they would want the law and order to be reinstated.

Look at their poster child, Hillary Clinton...

If law and order was a concern then why would she even be a candidate let alone stand a good chance of winning?

[Joods]

And Pence just turned down a pardon for an inmate who was found to be innocent.

Sorry. Not sorry. Neither drumph or his running mate should be in the white house. If the Indiana governor can't even be compassionate enough to clear the record of an innocent man, I shudder to think of what he would do to the citizens of this country should he get an opportunity in the white house.

[The Grand Nudger]

Question is, will the liberals be siding with those who have no respect for law and order and take what they please, or will they be begging on their knees for law and order to be restored? I know the response even if it doesn't happen, they would want the law and order to be reinstated.

Look at their poster child, Hillary Clinton...

If law and order was a concern then why would she even be a candidate let alone stand a good chance of winning?

You do realize that even "the liberals" have a demonstrably low level of trust in hillary...right?  Had the right not propped up a turd, hell, they may have won by default.  Both sides seemed to be locked in a race to see who could nominate the most unelectable candidate.  That race, the right won hands down...so it's not -all- a wash.

I'd vote for a parrot with racist tourrettes before I'd vote for either of them...because the parrot, at least, is fucking redeemable. 

[Aegon]

The establishment clause is as follows:


To me that reads that any action by a government or governmental body which even indicates that a specific religious idea is privileged over others is prohibited under the constitution. Putting "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance or "so help me god" in the naturalisation oath is clearly privileging christianity over other forms of religion and irreligion (giving the idea that the state thinks christianity is true), and having to get dispensation to remove them (as with an affirmation when giving testimony in court) only reinforces this privelege. To be properly constituional in my mind, there should be no reference to god in any document supplied by or statement from or to a state body, unless those documents or statements deal directly with religion (eg a report on the effectiveness of religious organisations in education for example would have to discuss religion in some way).

ahh, no.

to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

How is restricting the formal declaration of God and country not an impediment of the free exercise of religion?

Are you not petitioning congress to restrict how the practice of Christianity goes down, by mandating the removal of God in the pledge?

How in the fuck does the government maintaining separation of church and state by taking a phrase out of the pledge impeding on your free exercise of religion? How in the fuck does it restrict how anyone practices Christianity?

[KevinM1]

There are (at least) two camps of liberals in this country:

The Hilary establishment crowd
The Bernie anti-establishment crowd

There are, of course, others, like the green party folks, the anarchists, the communists, etc. I remember when Kucinich was the big hope for lots of my friends in the late 90s/early 2000s. They viewed him like many viewed 2004 Obama. But, I digress....

Those are the two big wings at the moment. So, please don't try to paint every liberal as an eager Hilary supporter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Even the hillary supporters would be more accurately coined "anti-trump campaigners", by and large.  Find me someone, anyone, who thinks that either of these two candidates is the best of the best, the optimal choice in a see of potential?  I'll wait, lol.