Why do the ritors ask for Justice?

[Pat Mustard]

You know what you never find in a foxhole, for realsies?  ...a fucking apologist.  

I'd be surprised at finding a fox in one, as well.

[Drich]

Sorry had some personal stuff come up, took a few days to sort out. but I'm back.

[RobertE]

You know what you never find in a foxhole, for realsies?  ...a fucking apologist.  

I'd be surprised at finding a fox in one, as well.

Me too, since they live in a den.

[Drich]

As any good military man will tell you their responsibilities are: God, Country, Family in that order.

...uh, no, whats this god business?  I never signed up to be a soldier for christ.  Country and family, hooah?

I didn't say you I said GOOD Military Man.

-and if jesus was letting loose at us both?  You pull the trigger because you don;t want to be an american's murderer through complacency, right.....?  I'd garrote Nelson Mandela for looking at you wrong...just saying.  

Maybe at Jesus Gonzolas

Hey smart guy, you don't have to look at hypotheticals here... (If this or if that you must be stopped..) How about simply find book chapter and verse.

"Hypotheticals" is a good description for chapter and verse.  What are you asking for, btw?

I'm not asking you anything. I'm telling asking "what if the bible says..." is pointless, because we have the bible and can just see if the bible says ...

If there's no mandate...then why tf are you a bunch of unmitigated racists?

For the same reason people without God are also racists... good old fashion self righteousness. The idea that what we do is right therefore everyone else is wrong.


My point is that once it is established that religious freedoms can be infringed upon for ANY REASON then that will be the day the government creates a law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of said religion.

[/quote]

Government doesn't have to establish a religion to prevent you asshats from discriminating, obviously.  

I did not say government had to establish a religion. I said all the government has to do is to set a precedent of augmenting the free exercise of religion by deeming certain aspects of it as "infringing on the rights of ..." then no matter the reason, the 1st amendment is out the window.

You guys are shifting so far left one baby step at a time it just makes sense to start removing basic rights, and don't even care.

I'm beginning to wonder who won WWII.

Yet Here we are 2015/6 and Clinton someone with a very good chance at holding the top office in the USA is calling for change in 'deep seated religious views.'

....only a few thousand years too late.........

Actually she is about 240 years too late as the constitutions prevents her from holding office and declaring how religion is to be practiced.

Or has your oath to defend this country AND THE CONSTITUTION been put aside for a personal disdain for God?

It's up to you, isn't it?  If you decide to turn your religious beliefs into a threat to american principles, no one can stop you from doing that.  

: shrugs :

but again, whe get to determin what is and is not a threat?

What happened when the rest of the bill of Rights gets deemed as a 'threat?'

This isn't a pick and choose who has what rights sport. either you stand for a country and it's founding principles or you are against them.

[The Grand Nudger]

...uh, no, whats this god business?  I never signed up to be a soldier for christ.  Country and family, hooah?

I didn't say you I said GOOD Military Man.

Oh, I see, what what would I know about that?  Never met any.  

-and if jesus was letting loose at us both?  You pull the trigger because you don;t want to be an american's murderer through complacency, right.....?  I'd garrote Nelson Mandela for looking at you wrong...just saying.  

Maybe at Jesus Gonzolas

Right, so you're yet another apologist I shouldn't look to find in a foxhole.  I mean sure, you'll be there, puffing your chest up when it suits you, but if jesus cam over the hill, there goes the brothers in arms routine huh?  See, you're fundamentally untrustworthy, lol.

"Hypotheticals" is a good description for chapter and verse.  What are you asking for, btw?

I'm not asking you anything. I'm telling asking "what if the bible says..." is pointless, because we have the bible and can just see if the bible says ...

....indeed we do and can......

For the same reason people without God are also racists... good old fashion self righteousness. The idea that what we do is right therefore everyone else is wrong.

So it;s not so much a commandment from god as it is a treasured personal interest?  Thanks, I guess?

My point is that once it is established that religious freedoms can be infringed upon for ANY REASON then that will be the day the government creates a law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of said religion.

You do realize that you've read that wrong...so wrong that's it obvious and jumps out immediately, don't you?  

Government doesn't have to establish a religion to prevent you asshats from discriminating, obviously.  

I did not say government had to establish a religion. I said all the government has to do is to set a precedent of augmenting the free exercise of religion by deeming certain aspects of it as "infringing on the rights of ..." then no matter the reason, the 1st amendment is out the window.

You guys are shifting so far left one baby step at a time it just makes sense to start removing basic rights, and don't even care.

I'm beginning to wonder who won WWII.

 
- and the other foot falls.......like I said, obvious..jumps -right- out.

It's up to you, isn't it?  If you decide to turn your religious beliefs into a threat to american principles, no one can stop you from doing that.  

: shrugs :

but again, whe get to determin what is and is not a threat?

What happened when the rest of the bill of Rights gets deemed as a 'threat?'

This isn't a pick and choose who has what rights sport. either you stand for a country and it's founding principles or you are against them.

Who gets to determine......?  "We the people".  Why is it that you seem to only be learning this now?

Respecting an establishment of religion (not a religious establishment, or a religious belief.....you can ardently believe that sacrificing a maiden to your bloodthristy god every thursday in a holy building is righteous and true and it will -still- be illegal to do so.)...drich. Allowing one particular religion...say -your- religion, to abuse the liberties of others..in short, to be a threat, would be seen, rightly, as the establishment of religion by government. You are arguing -against- that clause, in that amendment...not for it, or protected by it... by insisting that the government cannot lawfully craft pieces of legislation to prevent you from getting a free pass on the grounds of your belief. They are -required- by that amendment, to do so, if you insist upon making it an issue, if you insist upon your right to -be- that threat on religious grounds.

Believe -all- the bigoty shit you want...Drich. No one can stop you, it isn;t illegal. Don't -act- on that bigoty shit in illegal ways. How fucking hard can that be?

[Drich]

I hope that bar has long since been met.  Settle your scores with god on your own time, you have eternity.  I need to know I can count on you as an american first in the here and now.

If you're a bunch of racists who infringe upon the rights of others because of your deep seated bigotry....then the thing to do is stop doing that, not bitch about how someone called you out.  Give unto caesar, my friend.

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. 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,


So again congress can not pass a law that makes any one religion a state sanctioned religion. That said (and history points out) nothing prevents members of government can't personally endorse what they believe. 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, "impeding the free exercise of religion," To prohibit, a formal deceleration of allegiance to God is again impeding the free exercise of religion.

[Drich]

Isn't there a provision for a secular oath? I mean, the default in my country is also religious, but if you claim to be a non believer, they make you swear without any god. Especially at court.

The establishment clause is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

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?

[KevinM1]

Ahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahaha

Hahahahaha

Hahahahaahaha!

[KevinM1]

Just to try and balance this out. Here is a relatively old article where an unarmed white man was shot by police:

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/...-by-police

When you watch the bodycam video, it is clear for all to see that his right hand behind his back could have concealed a weapon, and the police had every right to shoot. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you are black, white or Asian, if you don't comply with simple instructions in English then you are going to get shot. It doesn't take intelligence but simple common sense not to play around with the police when they are trained to shoot to stop.

The police -always- have "every right to shoot"....that;s part of the problem.  The bar for that "right" is phenomenally low and it's a "right" that only they have, apparently.  Meanwhile, failure to comply with instructions..last I checked, wasn't a capital offense, and cops aren't empowered as judges, juries, and executioners even in the event that it were, so what are we discussing, really? Cops, btw, are not trained to "shoot to stop".  Common misconception fostered by sitcom cops and movies.  They;re trained to shoot, to kill.  If they draw their weapon, they will aim center mass and end your life with a parabel round (or two or three or a dozen).  They aren't trying to wing you.  

"Do what I say or I'll kill you"

Yeah, sounds legit...

One of my buddies is an Iraq War vet (as in, he led one of the squads going door-to-door to secure individual houses), and he's talked about this very thing.

The military has very clear rules of engagement.  The restrictions on cops aren't nearly as restrictive.  We're militarizing our police forces, but not giving them the training to go along with it.  And we're seeing the fallout in our streets.

[Joods]

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. 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,


So again congress can not pass a law that makes any one religion a state sanctioned religion. That said (and history points out) nothing prevents members of government can't personally endorse what they believe. 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, "impeding the free exercise of religion," To prohibit, a formal deceleration of allegiance to God is again impeding the free exercise of religion.

So then you'd be perfectly fine with replacing the word "god" with Allah on our money and in the taking of oaths for public offices and for testifying in court, right?